Peoria Pundit

According to an Agence France-Presse report of a United Nations officials’ meeting with Zimbabwe’s president Robert Mugabe in April (concerning how undemocratic the country’s last election was), Mugabe allegedly exploded when scolded by a U.S. representative: “Well,” said Mugabe, “I don’t think George Bush won the U.S. election, but I accept (it).”

United Nations,Zimbabwe,Robert Mugabe,2002 election

An investigation into what caused the accident will apparently focus on allegedly inaccurate maps. It sound’s like their have already identified the cause, and now want to make it official. Look for the mining company to blame human error and the humans to blame the company.

Over at Curmudgeonly & Skeptical, Rodger Schultz made a snarky comment about hoping the miners use the profits from their books deals to reimburse taxpayers, who largess made the rescue possible. Hey, Rodger, if you fell into a hole, the taxpayers would gladly pay to rescue your sorry ass.

There is something sick and disturbing in the human psyche that seeks to raise people to heroic stature, then seek to bring them down almost as quickly. Look at Pennsylvania Gov. Mark Schweiker. He was made out to be a hero because he gave good press conferences during the rescue effort. Politicians often have little to due during times of crisis, because they have professionals in place to do the work. I’m not trying to belittle Schweiker, he did fine. But all the news media could do in the aftermath was gush all over him about the great job he was doing and suggest to he reconsider his decision to not seek re-election, or seek “higher” office. Of course, the minute he does this, the media and the public will turn on him for “capitalizing” on the tragedy.

miner rescue,pennsylvania miners

Today, MSNBC is conducting a poll: “SHOULD TAXPAYERS REIMBURSE THE CLINTONS FOR THEIR WHITEWATER LEGAL FEES?” Well, since the law requires they be paid (as were Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr. when they were not indicted for their role in Iran-Contra), I would have to vote “yes.” At 9:30 a.m., 22 percent of 308 people voted “yes” and 78 percent voted “no.” Ten minutes later, 1,377 people had voted and there was only one percentage-point difference. The site posts a disclaimer that the poll is not scientifically valid. It would suggest is not logically valid, either. Why conduct a poll that asks a question about an issue that cannot and should not be affected by public sentiment? A better question would be “Should federal law require targets of grand jury investigations be reimbursed if there are no indictments?” Polling, which done scientifically, can be a great journalistic tool to measure public sentiment. This is great example of how online polling is worthless. I guarantee conservatives and liberals are *both* organizing to affect this poll’s outcome.

The events of September 11 happened nine unremarkable months into the presidency of George W. Bush. After the attacks, Bush was praised for his leadership. It seemed unpatriotic to criticize him. His “approval ratings” were as high as his father’s had been in the aftermath of the Gulf War.

10 months later, the war drags on and no one nows for sure if Osama Bin Laden is alive or dead. We seem to be getting ready for an attack on Iraq, but there is no timetable. Worse, people are wising up to the fact that there is no exit strategy. Exactly how do we know when we win? A case could be made that the only “win” in a war with no clear enemy is to punish host nations so severely, that helping terrorists is unthinkable by any nation. Bush isn’t prepared to do that and this nation isn’t either. We make allies of nations like Saudi Arabia, who differ from the Taliban only in their willingness to pretend they like us.

The news media is beginning to awaken to its responsibility to ask questions and demand answers.

George W Bush,Osama bin Laden,telfon,Taliban,Saudi Arabia,Iraq,9/11

“You are $#@&%!* REQUIRED to vote for me! My father and my uncle got shot in the HEAD dammit! You owe it to their martyred memory to vote for every Kennedy who runs for office! Why are we even debating this! Kennedy’s always win! It’s the $#@&%!* LAW!”

Heh.

It’s not quite that bad. The Democratic Party if rife with Kennedy idolators, and they are touting Kathleen Kennedy Townsend (Robert Kenedy’s daughter,) as the next Kennedy to run for president. The problem is, her only elected office is that of liutenant governor, and she may not even win her current race, for governor of Maryland. Says the Weekly Standard:

“All these premature coronations have left many longtime Townsend-watchers in Maryland baffled. Says a reporter who’s covered her for years, “There’s a real disconnect between her national reputation and that in the state, where it’s quite mixed.” Indeed, many are asking a nagging question before Kennedy groupies are permitted to hand over the nation’s car keys: Regardless of whether Townsend can fend off her Republican challenger, four-term congressman Bob Ehrlich, is she qualified to be governor?”

I cannot discount Townsend’s electibility. Several years ago, there was some speculation one of the Kennedys was considering establishing a residence Illinois for a future run for office. A family member who will remain nameless was all giddy over the prospect of voting for a a real, live Kennedy. I asked if it was the rapist Kennedy or the golf-club-wielding murder Kennedy. I cannot print her response.

Democrats,Kennedy family,Kathleen Kennedy Townsend,Robert Kennedy

Sajak has a good take on Hollywood political correctness.

Pat Sajak

Stossell is the only out-of-the-closet libertarian in journalism. As such, he is the target of all sorts of attacks. He is sure to get it from both sides when he takes on the entrenched war-on-drugs crowd in his latest report, an hour-long which will air at 10 p.m. Eastern/9 p.m. Central on Tuesday, July 30, on ABC. I am not sure complete legalization is the answer, but I admire Stossel for asking the questions. I once watched several dozen National Guard members and a multi-county drug-fighting unit stage a raid on a corn field an informant said was rife with marijuana. They found ONE plant. I interviewed a county sheriff who said he didn’t care if 100 studied show DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) programs did not reduce drug use among students, the parents liked it and he was going to fight a cut in its budget.

John Stossell,war on drugs,libertarians

I have been doing the journalism thing for 20 years now. There are ways to spin a story to make the the subject look good or bad. A good journalist avoids using loaded phrases, and doesn’t place accurate — yet unrelated — statements of fact together to suggest there is a connection. Yet that is what the Associated Press and MSNBC did to Bill and Hillary Clinton. The headline on the MSNBC story read “Clintons want taxpayers to foot bills.” It suggests the Clintons are sending their gas and electric bills the Congress for reimbursement. Actually, the Clintons was the U.S. government to pay their substantial legal bills from the Whitewater investigation, which resulted in no charged filed against either of them. Near the end of the story, the writer acknowledges that Reagan and Bush Sr. asked for similar reimbursement. After that, is a this sentence: “The independent counsel law pays legal fees for the subject of an investigation if no indictment results.” An honest reporter would have put this important piece of information up front. A dishonest reporter — one who wanted to outrage readers — would have put it, well, pretty much where it ended up, near the bottom of the story.

These two statements come after a paragraph that starts “The Clintons raked in millions of dollars last year after leaving the White House …” Any reporter of mine who turned in a story describing how much someone “raked in,” especially in such a nagative context, would hear a lecture about objectivity. “Earned” is a less judgemental word and should have been used instead. And I question the need for any information about how much they earned in the first place. Because the Clintons are legally entitled to the reimbursement, how much they earned isn’t exactly relevant, except perhaps to add color to the story. It certainly should not have been the third graph of the story, above the says they are entitled to the money.

The MSNBC article was posted late Friday. I cannot wait to see what hay Ann Coulter and other right-wing nutjobs make it.

Ann Coulter,whitewater,legal fees,media bias

A Michigan newspaper editor had returned to her job after her husband agreed to remove a campaign sign from his their yard. He is running for the office of Bay County commissioner. She had been placed on unpaid leave because the sign was a violation of the newspaper’s ethical code. She (and he) refused to remove the sign. The newspaper had sent her a letter telling her that while she was on unpaid leave, she would lose her family’s medical benefits.

So she relented, all the while complaining her rights were being violated. This is what should have happened. Of course, hubby has the right to run for office. She does she. But the newspaper had every right to fire her. I am sick of hearing journalists complaining that their rights are being violated because their newspaper or television station makes it a condition of employment for them avoid political entanglements. If I was her bos, I would have fired her on the spot the instant her husband announced for office. Her husband’s candidacy damaged her newspaper’s credibility. Any political story that paper puts out while her husband is a candidate, or worse, an elected official, can be criticized on that basis alone. Thanks to Romenesko for the link. If she had worked for any big city newspaper or broadcast media, this ethical problem would have been ignored.

The Rev. Al Sharpton, who is planning to run for president of the United States, is on videotape making a drug deal in 1983. And, it isn’t on the front page of every freeking newspaper in America. Coloring the News indeed. If this was even a minor white presidential candidate, this would be all over the media, as it should be. CNN is covering it. MSNBC and Fox News are not (according to the lack of links on their Web sites).

Maybe the idea that Sharpton — that fat tub of crap — is a drug dealer isn’t all that shocking and thus, isn’t all that newsworthy. I find it incredible that this news was broken by an HBO sports show. Of course, Sharpton tries to spin it, saying he never agreed to the deal and that he was never prosecuted (although may be due to the fact he became a government fink and reported on the activities of other so-called activists). Sharpton is suing HBO for $1 billion. Good luck, there, Al.

Update: In 1987, Sharpton and other so-called leaders of the black community accused several police officers of raping a Tawana Brawley, young black high school student, then accused a prosecutor of covering up the incident. The prosecutor later sued Brawley, Shaprton and two other race-baiting opportinists. There was no evidence whatsoever that any such incident ever took place. Yet, Sharpton continued to slander the officers. And all this time, the FBI had in its possession evidence that would have shown that Sharpton for the untrustworthy individual that he is. The FBI isn’t exactly covered in glory regarding this incident, either.

Update 2: Oliver Wills informs me that MSNBC has been carrying news about this all day long (see comments). I just wish there was original material about it on their Web site.

Al Sharpton,drug deal,oliver willis,MSNBC,Fox News