Wednesday, August 6, 2014

Liberal Psychosis

   By Donna J. Cole

 I have ran across a few articles this week that have forced me to think about the psychology of modern liberalism. They all seem to cross paths with a serious mental problem liberals have, moral equivalency. This problem can be observed in things like the reasoning behind why no score should be taken in a children's soccer game to why no one should win a war. First up in my analysis is a piece by " Leon Aron is a resident scholar and the Director of Russian Studies at the American Enterprise Institute" on

 In this piece, Aron explains it is easy to see, even clear to anyone who bothers to look with honest eyes, who is right and who is wrong in both Ukraine and Gaza. In Ukraine, the Ukrainians are in the right, the Russians are in the wrong. In Gaza, Hamas is wrong, Israel is right. Given this, Aron writes;
"Yet in neither case has the justness of the causes led the "West" to wish for a victory by the "right" side, rather than a "truce" or "ceasefire," which, as everyone knows, the "wrongs" are going to violate as soon as they recover, regroup, and resupply."

 What Aron begins to get at here, is how modern liberalism tries to make moral equivalencies about almost anything. He continues;
 "First, while someone's victory implies someone's defeat, "peace" – no matter how fraudulent or short-lived – superficially has no losers, and for that reason is vastly preferable. Second, the "right" and "wrong," the "just" and "unjust," the "good and evil" are inherently suspect because values themselves are suspect. Western opinion makers appear to have learned from elite universities that "values" are "individual" and "subjective." As a result, they must be taken out of political discourse and decision-making. Hence, too, the coverage by the elite media of the West of both wars as "conflicts" in which the word "just" or its synonyms never once appear, both sides are somehow equally at fault, and therefore a victory by one side is not more morally agreeable than by the other."

 It is this same reasoning that liberals use to justify children's soccer games to have no score, and all the kids get a trophy for just being there playing in the game. But, it is this same thought process that allows liberals to claim the supposed high ground when someone questions or is critical of things like a gay lifestyle or the social dysfunction of inner city blacks. How dare you question their values?! Your judgements are subjective! We cannot question these things. Those on the right are called bigots or racists for doing so. I could go on, but I'll advance to my next example.

 Joan Walsh writes a book review of Rick Perlstein's latest work for Salon. The title of book doesn't matter, all his books are the same, liberal versions of history after WWII to present day. Walsh throws out these ideas of how Republicans could have been good in her liberal mind, if they would have just followed this thinking. Like Gerald Ford was a good Republican because Betty Ford believed in ERA (The Equal Rights Amendment for women) and she was pro abortion. She writes, "(Pres. Ford was) a kindly ’50s sitcom dad with a pipe, but he has a wife perfect for the ’70s – Betty Ford could have been a friend of Maude or Mary Tyler Moore."

 Though Walsh and Perlstein's book she is reviewing, seem to be shocked that Americans didn't run away from Goldwater forever, elected Nixon, and elected Reagan. By her thinking, we all should be liberals by now and she tries, poorly, to explain why. It is very clear to me that Joan Walsh has no clue about the average American, even ones who maybe voted for Obama. I won't get deep into this, you can read it for yourself, but she and Perlstein make some connection between the 1970s movie "The Exorcist" and Ronald Reagan. Walsh goes on to say that people who supported Reagan were racists writing, "Race runs through the backlash to modern liberalism (with regard to Civil Rights) first channeled by Goldwater, then Nixon and then Reagan – and it runs back to the Civil War."

 Here is last part of Walsh's piece I want to deal with and it goes to core of much liberal thought, she writes,
  "He (Obama) found his inner FDR in time to beat Mitt Romney in 2012, but the damage to his two mandates, and his presidency, had been done, by Tea Party reaction and, yes, racism. And by the Democrats’ recurrent belief that their inner righteousness will redeem them......We (liberals) trust in our own moral superiority – and lately, in our moral superiority tied to demographic destiny, which seems unbeatable."

 This is it. Joan Walsh, like most liberals, believes she is morally superior. As a matter of fact, she writes it here as if it is gospel, not something (like global warming) to be debated. And she wants to believe that her and other liberal's "inner righteousness" should be enough to convince people to vote for Democrats and liberals, they should win every election and run the country. The piece she is writing here is trying to explain why that isn't so, and of course it's because of racism and such, not because of reality.

 Walsh is one of those liberals who thinks the First Amendment is all well and good if it only allows liberal speech. And she supports doing away with other speech by declaring it offensive. Criticism of blacks is racist. Criticism of gays is bigoted. Criticism of abortion is a war on women. If someone has a poster of an aborted fetus it's OK for some feminists to attack that person. But these liberals can rage in front of the Supreme Court or Wisconsin's State Capitol, harass, intimidate, spit on people no problem.

 The last article I want to comment on here was actually written back in 2010, but it's been brought back for the anniversary of the USA dropping the A-bombs on Japan to end WWII. This is by Robert Frisk in the UK paper The Independent. It's another moral equivalency piece, that we (the USA) didn't have to nuke Japan. I am not going to bother to give this one much time, you can read it if you like. But, and he does talk a lot about all nations apologizing for war, like somehow this will keep us from doing it again. His general idea is the same one I began with, Israel is bad for attacking Gaza, the US was bad for nuking Japan.

 I hope my brief journey through liberal thought tonight helped to enlighten you to the mental disease they suffer from.      

Thursday, July 31, 2014

Mark Belling was SO wrong, I had to say something.

    By Donna Cole

 Tuesday evening I read a story in the New York Times titled "Paying Ransoms, Europe Bankrolls Qaeda Terror." I found the article to be shocking for several reasons, and I really wanted to write about the article for a reason that I think might have been lost on many who read it. I always look for a unique angle on stories, and I thought I had a rather good one. I'll discuss that angle later.

 The first thing I want to discuss is something that as a media critic I cannot in good faith let go without being called out. On his WISN 1130 radio show Wednesday (7-30-14) host Mark Belling discussed this same story. Because I hadn't had the time to write about it yet, I was very interested to hear Belling's take because while I don't always agree with him, at times I do find his insights interesting and informative. Besides the story itself being shocking, I was quite shocked at how Belling grossly misrepresented the story. I know he was talking about the same story, but what he read, or claimed to have read, had the same title but was totally different than anything I read. I felt so strongly about this that I later listened to Belling's show podcast, hour 2-part 1, 7-30-14, and made a transcript of the segment in which he discussed this article. I don't know how long this link will work because I know Belling removes his podcasts after 24 hours. I downloaded and saved the podcast to my computer, but I am not sure how to link it to this post, but I do have it as evidence.

 The following is my transcript of the show segment in question, it begins at about 11:25 of the podcast and lasts roughly 6 minutes, till the end of this podcast. Once you read Belling's take, I will point out what he got so badly wrong, and explain why it is important to know the truth. BELLING SEGMENT BEGINS;

"Here are words I thought I wouldn't be saying, there's an outstanding story in the New York Times! You realize what a rarity that is?! It's actually very good, you can find it online, 'Paying Ransoms, Europe Bankrolls Qaeda Terror.'

-The story in the New York Times deals with the practice of Al Qaeda to kidnap European businessmen in the Middle East and demand ransom. It is apparently more common than has been reported because most of these deals by their requirement are kept private, they're Hush Hush."

-Al Qaeda grabs some prominent person, his family or the business pays a large ransom, in order to keep the person from getting killed, Al Qaeda pockets the money. The New York Times reports this has been consistent, and that it is rarely reported by governments because they do not want to acknowledge there is an ongoing practice of negotiating with terrorists."

-I have a comment on this. Every time someone is held hostage by a terror organization there is overwhelming public pressure to do something about it. The problem with that is it guarantees more people will be taken in the future. The New York Times story says that kidnapping is becoming one of the top revenue streams by Al Qaeda to fund their terror."

-In other words, they're in the business now of kidnapping. Kidnap, extortion, this is where they get their money. Some of their rich Saudi oil money has dried up so that they simply grab people. Well what do you want them to do, kill those people? The more times you pay ransom the more you merely guarantee people will be endangered."

-I think there is a basic rule you have to establish. If a terrorist organization kidnaps someone, that person unfortunately is on their own. Because there is a greater good that needs to be satisfied. That is we don't want to be vulnerable to these organizations doing it over and over and over. Every time you pay a ransom to Al Qaeda you reward them for the fact that they kidnapped in the first place. Oh, you wouldn't say that if it was your lover. No, I probably wouldn't. We all have situational ethics. But the entities that are making these decisions have to consider the greater good.

-Which is why, according to the New York Times one of things Al Qaeda is doing now is they don't go through the government. In the case of the lede* of their story, they kidnapped a German businessman, who do you think they contacted? The business. Why go through Germany? They might not pay. The business is gonna pay to get their executive back. And the big trick, charging just enough to bankroll your terrorism, but not so much that the business isn't going to pay. If Al Qaeda kidnapped me, how much do you think Clear Channel would pay to get me back? (Joking goes on a minute, then commentary continues).

-You get some of these big multinational companies, and they feel some sort of obligation because they send the people to go work in these countries that may be dangerous and therefore they feel an obligation to try to protect them."

END OF SEGMENT  (*Note: The word lede, not lead, is "the lede is the first sentence or short portion of an article that gives the gist of the story and contains the most important points readers need to know." From the Grammarist.)

 So, what did Belling get wrong about this story? Almost everything. Let's begin with just who is being kidnapped, quotes from the NY Times story;

 "On Feb. 23, 2003, a group of four Swiss tourists, including two 19-year-old women, woke up in their sleeping bags in southern Algeria to the shouts of armed men."

"Over the coming weeks, another seven tour groups traveling in the same corner of the desert vanished. European governments scrambled to find their missing citizens."

"...a Swede living in Germany, from his 54 days as a hostage in 2003. He was on what he thought would be a four-week adventure vacation when he was kidnapped in the Algerian desert by jihadists..."

"Armed with a few hunting rifles and old AK-47s, the kidnappers succeeded in sweeping up dozens of tourists over several consecutive weeks, mostly from Germany, but also from Austria, the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland. Though they planned the first few ambushes, they appear to have grabbed others by chance, like a pair of hapless 26-year-olds from Innsbruck, Austria, who were spotted because of the campfire they had lit to cook spaghetti."

"The cash filled three suitcases: 5 million euros.....The German official charged with delivering this cargo arrived here aboard a nearly empty military plane and was whisked away to a secret meeting with the president of Mali, who had offered Europe a face-saving solution to a vexing problem.....Officially, Germany had budgeted the money as humanitarian aid for the poor, landlocked nation of Mali.....In truth, all sides understood that the cash was bound for an obscure group of Islamic extremists who were holding 32 European hostages, according to six senior diplomats directly involved in the exchange....."

 The last paragraph there is very important, because that is the "lede" of the story, slightly edited to keep on the point. The other quotes I used were to describe who these 32 European hostages were. They were all tourists. Not one mention of them being businessmen. The story continues with more facts about just who is kidnapped;

"Within a few years, there was a split within Al Qaeda, with the group’s affiliate in Iraq grabbing foreigners specifically to kill them.....In Algeria, the kidnappers of the European tourists followed a different path....As kidnapping revenue became their main lifeline, they honed and perfected the process.....By Feb. 2, 2011, when their lookouts in southern Algeria spotted a 53-year-old Italian tourist, Mariasandra Mariani, admiring the rolling dunes through a pair of binoculars......"

"....a commander holding two Canadian diplomats."

"In 2009, four tourists were returning to Niger from a music festival in Mali when kidnappers overtook their cars, shooting out their tires. The hostages included a German woman, a Swiss couple and a British man, Edwin Dyer, 61."

 A few other hostages are mentioned in the story, but other than those two Canadian diplomats, it either does not say why they were there, or that they were tourists. In fact, by far, all the hostages mentioned are European tourists. There is no mention of businessmen in the article, and certainly no mention of something so specific as a "German businessman." There is no kidnapped German businessman in the lede of the story or anywhere else in it, I say this a second time to drive the point home and to "lead" into the next thing Mr. Belling got so badly wrong. That is who pays for the release of these hostages.

 Belling said, "Al Qaeda grabs some prominent person, his family or the business pays a large ransom, in order to keep the person from getting killed, Al Qaeda pockets the money." That is also not true except for the fact Al Qaeda pockets the money. Nowhere in the story, besides not mentioning a "prominent" person, does it say any family or business pays the ransom. The NY Times story says repeatedly things like the following (as a matter of fact, who pays is one of the key elements of the story);

"While European governments deny paying ransoms, an investigation by The New York Times found that Al Qaeda and its direct affiliates have taken in at least $125 million in revenue from kidnappings since 2008, of which $66 million was paid just last year."

"These payments were made almost exclusively by European governments, who funneled the money through a network of proxies, sometimes masking it as development aid..."

"The foreign ministries of Austria, France, Germany, Italy and Switzerland denied in emails or telephone interviews that they had paid the terrorists." (In reality they have, more on that next.)

"Only a handful of countries have resisted paying, led by the United States and Britain.....“The Europeans have a lot to answer for,” said Vicki Huddleston, the former United States deputy assistant secretary of defense for African affairs, who was the ambassador to Mali in 2003 when Germany paid the first ransom. “It’s a completely two-faced policy. They pay ransoms and then deny any was paid.” She added, “The danger of this is not just that it grows the terrorist movement, but it makes all of our citizens vulnerable.”

"All over Europe, families rallied, pressuring governments to pay. Ms. Mariani was ultimately released, along with two Spanish hostages, for a ransom that a negotiator involved in her case said was close to €8 million."

"The Swiss and German nationals held alongside Mr. Dyer were released after a reported ransom of €8 million was paid, according to one of the Swiss negotiators who helped win their release. The same year, lawmakers in Bern, the Swiss capital, voted on a national budget that “suddenly had an extra line for humanitarian aid for Mali,” the official said."

"Negotiators believe that the Qaeda branches have now determined which governments pay."

"Western countries have signed numerous agreements calling for an end to ransom paying, including as recently as last year at a G8 summit, where some of the biggest ransom payers in Europe signed a declaration agreeing to stamp out the practice. Yet according to hostages released this year and veteran negotiators, governments in Europe — especially France, Spain and Switzerland — continue to be responsible for some of the largest payments, including a ransom of €30 million — about $40 million — paid last fall to free four Frenchmen held in Mali."

"The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for security reasons, went on to describe how the money was transferred. European governments send an escort, he said, who travels with the money several hundred miles into the desert until the last safe outpost, usually leaving from Ouagadougou, the capital of Burkina Faso, or Niamey in Niger."

"The money is written off by European governments as an aid payment, or else delivered through intermediaries, like the French nuclear giant Areva, a state-controlled company that a senior negotiator said paid €12.5 million in 2011 and €30 million in 2013 to free five French citizens. (A spokesman for Areva denied in an email that a ransom had been paid.)"

 As you can see in these quotes from the article, they all mention the government as the ones who are paying the ransoms. I did include the last paragraph to show that it is mentioned, this one time, in the story that the French used a state owned company as a middleman (this was near the end of the story as well, not in the lede), but in reality, all of the ransom money is coming from these various European governments. And it certainly is not how Belling described it. There is no "big trick" either, as in not asking for too much money. They get as much as they can, and the article makes this clear.

 Other problems I have with Belling's "flawed analysis" of this article is that he states these kidnappings are happening in the Middle East. The article states; "The bulk of the kidnappings-for-ransom carried out in Al Qaeda’s name have occurred in Africa, and more recently in Syria and Yemen." And the story reflects this fact, the majority of the article is about Al Qaeda's activities in Africa.

 Belling also says the terrorists go to the businesses for the ransom money, not the government. I think I have clearly established that the article says no such thing. It states that the terrorists do contact the governments, through various methods, and negotiate through diplomatic type channels. One time, the terrorists make contact by calling the Arab news network Al Jazeera. Another time, they leave a written message under a rock. Regardless, they are contacting governments and/or diplomats not businesses.

 I don't know why Belling so badly misrepresented this article, he had no reason to that I can think of. Clearly he didn't read it, I don't even think he breezed it. It would seem to me he read the headline and totally invented the story. I admit, I read dozens of stories everyday, perhaps hundreds, and I do not read all of those thoroughly, but the ones I write about, I do read thoroughly. If I am going to publicly comment on a story, then I want to have my facts straight.

 Was Belling just lazy, and figured no one would call him on it? I don't know, he has the answer to that question. I really do not want to believe that Belling is just so lazy he winged it and thought he could get away with it. I do know that Belling sometimes gets facts wrong, but usually it's a small thing (minor detail or how he might have read something and interpreted it differently than I did) I catch here or there, and I let it go. But, he so badly butchered this article, I couldn't let it slide. Other times Belling is wrong it's on something that is subjective, so it's hard to say he is just plain wrong verses just a matter of opinion (perhaps his is a poorly informed opinion on some things). In this case, he is plain wrong. No two ways about it.

 The reason it is important to get the facts right about this particular article is exactly some of the facts Belling screwed up. It is a BIG DEAL that European nations are paying these ransoms, not only funding Al Qaeda but encouraging them to keep doing it. That was a point Belling made, but he so badly made it that I give him no credit for it. One could almost forgive a company for paying to release an employee they put into harms way, but that is not the case in this article.

 These European governments are allowing their citizens to travel to these countries, for seemingly harmless tourism, knowing there is not only a chance to be kidnapped, but because they have paid locals off before, there is an even greater chance they will be taken. Yet, they still allow them to go there, thus perpetuating the cycle. Do these governments not see this? Why don't they stop their people from going to these places? Do the citizens know all this, and go because they figure the government will bail them out, with millions of dollars (Euros)? These are important questions that Belling's take on the story totally glossed over because he missed, or disregarded, the basic facts.

 I'm sorry I spent so much time on Belling, and I am glad if you are still with me here reading this. But, I hope you understand I had no choice in the matter, I could not sleep well if I didn't ring the bell on this. Now, if you will allow me, since you are already here this far along, I would like to take a brief time to make the point I had originally wanted to make about this story. Remember, my unique angle?

 We have been told by liberals, Democrats, the media, President Obama and his cabinet members, that Al Qaeda is on the run. That they are loosely affiliated, or just groups who claim the mantle of Al Qaeda with no real connection. We are told that Al Qaeda is "decentralized" with no real command structure. When The New York Times published their magazine piece that was supposed to answer every question about Benghazi and put to bed any discussion about it, there was no Al Qaeda involved, or even any Al Qaeda in Libya. Just guys saying they are Al Qaeda to get street cred, but no real relationship because there is no real Al Qaeda. Just a few old guys still alive in the mountains of Pakistan who make videos or audio recordings, giving non specific orders like, "Kill Americans."

 That is what we have been told to believe, but surprisingly this New York Times' story, and to their credit, paints a bit of a different picture. I honestly believe that either they (the Times' editors) didn't see this connection, or thought that anyone else would make it. I lean to the former because I think they missed it too. It's easier to see when these facts are isolated. Just read the following quotes from the story, and see if you can put together a picture. From The NY Times piece;

"The suitcases were loaded onto pickup trucks and driven hundreds of miles north into the Sahara, where the bearded fighters, who would soon become an official arm of Al Qaeda..."

"Kidnapping Europeans for ransom has become a global business for Al Qaeda, bankrolling its operations across the globe."

"The inner workings of the kidnapping business were also revealed in thousands of pages of internal Qaeda documents found by this reporter while on assignment for The Associated Press in northern Mali last year."

"...counterterrorism officials now believe the group finances the bulk of its recruitment, training and arms purchases from ransoms paid to free Europeans....Put more bluntly, Europe has become an inadvertent underwriter of Al Qaeda."

"The stream of income generated is so significant that internal documents show that as long as five years ago, Al Qaeda’s central command in Pakistan was overseeing negotiations for hostages grabbed as far afield as Africa. Moreover, the accounts of survivors held thousands of miles apart show that the three main affiliates of the terrorist group — Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, in northern Africa; Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, in Yemen; and the Shabab, in Somalia — are coordinating their efforts and abiding by a common kidnapping protocol."

"To minimize the risk to their fighters, the terror affiliates have outsourced the seizing of hostages to criminal groups who work on commission. Negotiators take a reported 10 percent of the ransom, creating an incentive on both sides of the Mediterranean to increase the overall payout..."

"The exploits of the band of fighters in the Sahara did not go unnoticed....A year later, in 2004, a Qaeda operative, Abdelaziz al-Muqrin, published a how-to guide to kidnapping, in which he highlighted the successful ransom negotiation of “our brothers in Algeria.”

"They used the €5 million as the seed money for their movement, recruiting and training fighters who staged a series of devastating attacks. They grew into a regional force and were accepted as an official branch of the Qaeda network, which baptized them Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb...."

"The bulk of the kidnappings-for-ransom carried out in Al Qaeda’s name have occurred in Africa, and more recently in Syria and Yemen. These regions are thousands of miles from the terror network’s central command in Pakistan."

"In a letter discovered by this reporter in buildings abandoned by the jihadists in Mali last year, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb blamed the commander, Mokhtar Belmokhtar, for securing only the “meager sum” of €700,000 — around $1 million — saying the low amount was a result of his unwillingness to follow the instructions of the group’s leadership in Pakistan."

"In his last broadcast before his death in 2011, Osama bin Laden spoke at length about the case of four French citizens held by Al Qaeda in Mali, making clear that he was keeping close tabs on individual kidnappings."

"Hostages held as recently as last year in Yemen say it was clear the negotiations were being handled by a distant leadership....Atte and Leila Kaleva, a Finnish couple held for five months by Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in 2013, deduced this from the voluminous correspondence they saw being delivered to their captors...“There were lots of letters back and forth,” Mr. Kaleva said. “It was clear that they had a hierarchy, and they were consulting their leaders about what to do with us.”

 So, what does that sound like to you, a decentralized bunch of goofs running around doing their own thing, simply inspired by some videos on the internet? Or, a highly structured organization with centralized command and control?

 While I know the answer, and I hope you do too, I would like to end with this. The left cannot have it both ways, when it fits their narrative of the moment. They can't one day be allowed to say it was just a bunch of unorganized goofs running around who pulled off the Benghazi attack, then turn around and say it's this thing that sounds as organized as something between the mafia of old and a modern nation state's disciplined military. They have to choose which one it is, and stick with it. It is on conservatives to call them on this, and not allow liberals to create their own Al Qaeda du jour.

Sunday, October 13, 2013

Get me pissed off, and I'll tell you the truth.

   By Donna Cole. MediaPolitical Editor at Large, Passionate Pachyderms Senior Editorial Columnist. 

 As a media critic, and a journalist, I have discussed many times in posts about ethics and integrity. I have discussed the difference between off the record, and on the record, and how sometimes you have to weigh things, whether or not at times one should just eat things and when it is in the better public interest to just lay it out there. These are not easy decisions to make, and because I was recently put in one of these positions I have decided to make what I feel is the right choice, and lay it out there. In thinking about this, it opened me up to a broader topic, and that is why I made the final decision to openly discuss this subject.

Thursday, October 10, 2013

Freedom of the Press, President Obama, and the Truth

   By Donna Cole, MediaPolitical Editor at Large

 The Committee to Protect Journalists, a worldwide organization that usually covers things like Third World dictatorships imprisoning reporters, has just released a scathing special report titled "The Obama Administration and the Press" on the relationship between the two. This is not a partisan news organization, so it is not a right wing hit piece. 

Sunday, September 15, 2013

Hail to the Redskins No More

   By Donna Cole

  The Washington Post editorial board sends we peasants a message from their perch on the heights of moral superiority. An editorial characterizing their unhappiness with the name of the local D.C. professional football team, the Washington Redskins. Like Iron Eyes Cody crying in a 1970s anti-littering public service announcement, they are despondent that team owner Dan Snyder has said as long as he owns the team the name Redskins will remain, and the ultimate decision is his and his alone.

 The Post board are happy N.F.L. commissioner Roger Goodell has changed his tune on the name of the football team. It is clear the P.C. nanny squad has gotten to Goodell who last June wrote with regard to the Redskins, "the name is a unifying force that stands for strength, courage, pride and respect". Now, just a few months later, Goodell, in what The Post calls a "nuanced pivot" says, "if we are offending one person, we need to be listening and making sure that we’re doing the right things to try to address that."

 Ah yes, the 'ole if just one person is offended to hell with want the rest of you think contrivance. I understand that it is wrong for white people, but not blacks, to use the "N" word, and if a white person does then it is a real problem. But these things also must be taken in full context. I am not hearing about all these problems with white people running around calling indigenous Americans redskins. I grew up a Redskins football fan, I never thought of the name being a slur, if anything, I thought it was an honor to the first inhabitants of this great land. Is the name dated ? Yes, but it has a long football history that is part of it too. And I do not put the word redskins on the same level with the "N" word, as far as racial slurs go, they are on totally different planes.

 I am sure the liberal crowd will say because I am white, besides inheriting some mysterious privilege that I've yet to be able to tap into, I certainly didn't have affirmative action to get me into Harvard or anything like that, I am born a racist simply because of the color of my skin, and thus I cannot ever fathom how offensive these things supposedly are. To me, that thinking is far more racist than the name of the Washington football team, and just a cheap liberal trick to dismiss dissenting opinions and will of the majority. I will also remind you that while we hear all this talk of human equality and a colorless society from the left, it is in fact they who always bring up race as a measure of a person and use it to pummel their political opponents with false accusations of racism.

 The most perplexing thing of all is that white liberals tell me I am a racist because I am white, and even though we share the same skin color they are not. They say they are not racist because somehow they, and only they, have achieved some enlightened state of post-racial consciousness. How they made this transition from the racist Siddhartha to the all loving Buddha has never been explained to me. Like faith in a higher power, which most liberals reject, we are expected to just take their word for it.

 Putting all that behind, these two sentences are what bothered me the most from The Post's editorial; "We understand that changing the name is not a trifling matter. There is a cost (estimated by some to be as high as $20 million), but surely the owner of the NFL’s third-most valuable franchise can afford it."

 Now I see where the board members coming from. Dan Snyder is made of money, he cannot use the cost as an excuse. He can afford $20 million bucks to change a name he does not want to change. Why that is mere chicken scratch for a man who owns a football team, he probably has the cash in his desk drawer. So, what's the big deal here ? Cough up the cash, change the name, and we will quit dragging your name through the mud on the pages of our newspaper.

 The pompous arrogance of The Post's editorial board on the money issue is more nauseating than their stance on changing the name. Obviously, they are so disconnected from reality up in their ivory tower they do not understand a football team is a business, and businesses do not make $20 million expenditures without good reason. Just because The Post, along with a few A.C.L.U. liberal types and the Indian tribes they ginned up, claim they are offended by the name is not a good enough reason to change it.

 I hope Mr. Snyder has the fortitude to remain strong in the face of these politically correct nagging ninnies and not cave on the name Redskins, but I fear in the end he will. Perhaps changing the team's name to the "Washington Honky Crackers" will appease The Post and calm their delicate sensibilities.

Monday, September 9, 2013

For Lynn and friends, on Liz Warren

   By Donna Cole

 Yesterday, my Facebook friend Lynn, and some of her left leaning friends, had a discussion about a post I made on Massachusetts' Senator Elizabeth Warren. They did not agree with my opinions of Warren, like she is a near Marxist nut job, even nuttier than most liberals (meaning she is way out to the extreme of leftism). Lynn et al. said I had no evidence to base my thoughts about Sen. Warren on and challenged me to produce it. That is why I am here. Let us begin.

Friday, June 7, 2013

A Democrat To Vote For

   By Donna Cole

 The following is a speech I prepared in anticipation of being invited to speak at the Wisconsin Democrat Party Convention in Oconomowac this weekend (June 7-8). Sadly, the invitation never came. Probably a clerical error. So, I share my prepared remarks, which I worked very hard on, with you. Note: This speech was written to be delivered in a high energy style. Please read it that way for full effect.

Sunday, May 26, 2013

Long reads

   By Donna Cole

 Here are the better long reads and essays I have ran across in the last week or so.

Monday, May 13, 2013

Weekly Top Long Reads

   By Donna Cole

 MediaPolitical tries to avoid politics as much as possible on the weekend and do my long form reading on other subjects I find interesting. These are the better articles, reviews and essays I came across last weekend, and I thought I'd start sharing them. Some of the stuff linked here is borderline political, and it's all lefty stuff, but I like to understand how my adversary thinks. So, if you see something here that might interest you and have time for a long read, give it a shot. Remember: Read, it makes you smart. Read stuff out of your normal comfort zone and it makes you even smarter.

Thursday, May 9, 2013

Benghazi Facts and Fiction

    By Donna Cole

  The Washington Post's "Fact Checker" Glenn Kessler looks at the most recent Benghazi hearings and tries to dig out what is new and what is not. While Kessler is one of the better fact checkers in the media, many times what are facts can be quite subjective when put in the wrong person's hands. So, what did Kessler find out? And what does it all mean?

Wednesday, May 8, 2013

Goodbye Jodi

   By Donna Cole

 I am SO glad this Jodi Arias trial is over. My husband won't admit it, but he loves Nancy Grace on Court TV (or whatever they call that channel now). I tease him about it and talk about what a wacko she is, and that is an insult to other wackos, but she gets ratings by saying holier than thou over the top nonsense. That aside, I knew nothing about this trial, other than it was going ON and ON and ON, and Nancy was ranting and raving for what seemed forever.

Wednesday, April 17, 2013

I knew this would happen.

  By Donna Cole 

 Wait a minute. The way I understood things when Obama's Pentagon decided to let women into full combat rolls, being in the infantry, like Marines or 101st  Army Airborne, was that the deal was they had to carry the same load, hack out the same training, and at the end of the day be just as bad ass as the men.

Sunday, March 17, 2013

Love, Egyptian Style

   By Donna Cole

 Luckily, I have never had the need for marriage counseling, but if I did I would hope to get better advice than what passes for counseling in Egypt today. When the so called Arab Spring spread from Tunisia to Egypt the liberal media fawned over what they believed was a flowering of democracy in the autocratic nation. The same liberal media that bends over backwards not to be critical of Muslim society. President Obama remained silent and offered no support for America's long time loyal ally, Egyptian strongman Hosni Mubarak, as his secular regime fell.

  The American left falsely believed some sort of liberalization was happening in Muslim society, and held up what was a relatively peaceful transition to a democratic process in Egypt as proof this was happening in the Islamic world. Those on the right were more skeptical of what democracy might bring for those countries, warned to be careful what you wish for, and questioned just how democratic those elections were. Tunisia is no better than before, Libya is a mess that we all know about, Syria is a bloodbath, and Egypt is, well, you can decide.

Wednesday, March 13, 2013

Government Funded Fraud

   By Donna Cole

 "Doctors at the prestigious John Hopkins Medical School have breakthrough genetic research that could lead to a quantum leap in cancer treatment published in the esteemed scientific journal Nature." That headline sounds like the makings of a Nobel Prize winner, and it probably had a good chance for one except for the fact that the research is fraudulent. In other words, the books were cooked.

Friday, March 8, 2013

The past explains the present, and the future.

   By Donna Cole

 Many on the right thought that due to the dismal state of the economy that had shown no improvement under President Obama's leadership, and his failed policies leading to a bleak future outlook, the Republican candidate would win the 2012 election. No president had ever won reelection with such terrible economic numbers and after four years voters would no longer blame former President Bush is what they believed. While I had high hopes, and my prediction was that it was really possible for Romney to win, I knew it was a long shot and wouldn't be surprised or stunned if Obama won. And I wasn't.

Wednesday, March 6, 2013

Like Noonan, Like Parker, Like RINO

   By Donna Cole

 In her latest Washington Post op-ed, Kathleen Parker proves again what I have long said of her, "She is a Peggy Noonan Republican." That would be the former Reagan speech writer and current somewhat liberal for a conservative Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan. Parker's column is on the new Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer and the outrage over her decision to end telecommuting (working from home) by telling workers they have to come into the office and do what they get a paycheck for at the place that signs those paychecks. The people most upset, and thus most vocal, about this are work at home moms.

Friday, March 1, 2013

Zielinski Unglued

 By Donna Cole                                                                                                                

    This morning it was announced that the two and a half year long politically motivated John Doe Witch Hunt investigation of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker by the over zealous liberal Democrat Milwaukee County D.A. John Chisholm finally ended with no witches being found. Gov. Walker was cleared, and said to have done no, or been involved in any, wrong doing. This after D.A. Chisholm wasted millions of the county taxpayer's funds dragging in so-called witnesses before his not so secret grand jury, then allowing those witnesses names to be leaked to the Milwaukee Journal, which had it's own political motivations, and smeared on the this rag's pages.

Thursday, February 28, 2013

Eat your peas. NOW!

   By Donna Cole

 First Lady Michelle Obama has taken to the pages of The Wall Street Journal with an op-ed telling the business world that it is good business to sell healthy food if you know what is good for you because she would hate for anything to happen to this nice business you have here.

Thursday, February 21, 2013

ACU's Wisconsin Congressional Ratings

   By Donna Cole

 The American Conservative Union (ACU) has released it's yearly Ratings of the United States Congress (pdf) leading into next months Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) beginning March 14th. These rankings are for last year, 2012, the second session of the 112th Congress. ACU uses a 100 point scale, and ranks members based on their voting record. The higher the number, the more conservative the member is.

Tuesday, January 29, 2013

Lt. Gov. Kleefisch discrimination accusations; Answers and more questions

   By Donna Cole

 Last Friday (Jan.25th), Milwaukee Journal political watchdog reporter Dan Bice broke a story on his No Quarter blog that Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch's ex-chief of staff, Jeanne Tarantino, accused her former boss of age and sex discrimination. The accusation came in Waukesha County court, under oath, while being questioned by the lawyer for Mrs. Tarantino's ex-husband back on Dec. 28th, 2012. Upon review of the court documents, the case is all part of long drawn out divorce with money and support as the central issue.

Tuesday, December 4, 2012

May The Force be with you.

   By Donna Cole

 Yesterday, it was reported by several media outlets that someone had created a new petition on the White House website "We the People." On this site folks can start a petition and if they get more than 25,000 signatures supposedly President Obama will address the issue. This new petition called on the government to build a Death Star, like the one in the movie Star Wars. They said it would be good because the project would create a lot of jobs (among other things).

Tuesday, November 6, 2012

MediaPolitical Predictions and other election stuff you need to know

   By Donna Cole

 Last week, Charles Krauthammer summed up what this presidential election is about in one nice tidy sentence, "At stake is the relation between citizen and state, the very nature of the American social contract." While every four years we hear "this one" is the most important ever, this election is special because with an Obama victory the relationship Krauthammer wrote about will be fundamentally and forever changed. Taking this into account, let's take a look at the state of the race and what MediaPolitical knows, believes, thinks, or doesn't think, will happen. (Yes, some simple math is involved, you have been forewarned.)

Wednesday, October 3, 2012

MediaPolitical's thoughts on MSNBC's post debate coverage

   By Donna Cole

 My first analysis of tonight's debate from watching the post debate coverage is that the liberals at MSNBC are beyond excuse making, or hair on fire, they are angry. Public displays of anger is one of the hallmarks of liberalism, and they are publicly showing their rear ends tonight. As a pundit, MediaPolitical is embarrassed how they are behaving.

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Red Meat

   By Donna Cole

 After the fire had just died down to a smolder over Mitt Romney's comments on President Obama's response to the attack on our Libyan consulate the left wing media's hair is ablaze again over what he said to a donor at a private $50,000 a plate fundraiser about the 47% of Americans who pay no federal income tax. They are high with delight and giddy with glee over their latest big gotcha.

Saturday, September 8, 2012

Obama the War Criminal ? No, it can't be.

   By Donna Cole

  MediaPolitical found an interesting little editorial in Saturday's New York Times. It seems the Obama administration has tried to deny some prisoners at Guantanamo Bay access to their lawyers and a Federal Judge smacked down the Constitutional lawyer who also happens to be our President.

Friday, September 7, 2012

What was learned from the Democratic National Convention?

   By Donna Cole

 Thursday night, President Obama delivered his less than awe inspiring pitch for re-election and the 2012 Democratic National Convention came to an end. The liberal pundits were certainly for the most part let down with the President's speech, their reactions to it went from the speech was a dud, to the president was modest in his goals and didn't want to over promise, to it was adequate and this was a safe speech by a man confident he has re-election in the bag. But by all accounts, this speech will probably not be on Obama's greatest hits album, if it is, maybe the ninth tune on the B side.

Friday, August 10, 2012

Some thoughts on the Wisconsin senate race.

   By Donna Cole

 In May I wrote a column supporting Mark Neumann in the Republican senate primary. As time has gone on and we get closer to the primary, I must admit I have wavered somewhat in my support of Neumann. The reason is because I have gone from supporting the candidate I personally like the most to asking which one can beat Tammy Baldwin ?

Sunday, August 5, 2012

Your future is trash.

   By Donna Cole

 Want to see the our economic future ? You don't need a crystal ball, just look in the garbage. Actually, you need to look at the number of rail carloads of garbage hauled as calculated by the Association of American Railroads. Economist Michael McDonough produced the following chart showing the correlation between waste carloads and GDP growth, and he used this methodology to predict the near 4% growth rate in 2010. (Credit to The Fix as my original source for this chart.)

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

Polls with a little psychology thrown in.

   By Donna Cole

 MediaPolitical has been digging through some recent polling data on the presidential race looking for interesting trend shifts and we found a few things worthy of deeper examination. The main two sets of data I am using are from the most recent Washington Post/ ABC News poll from 7/8/12 and the New York Times/ CBS News poll from 7/11-16/12.

Saturday, July 21, 2012

Democrat Economics 101

   By Donna Cole

 It seems I have caught Ezra Klein at Wonkblog telling a fib. You know Ezra, the liberal economic wunderkind, Democrat business expert (who has never actually worked a day in the business sector), and sometime fill in host for Rachel Maddow's MSNBC show.

 We at MediaPolitical always find it humorous that the only so-called experts on economics, business and regulatory policy, that liberals can put forth are ones who never actually worked in the fields they are supposed to be experts in. They all come from academia, journalism, or some political background. Klein himself has a B.A. in political science, and besides working for Howard Dean's failed presidential bid in 2003 his whole career is in liberal biased journalism and left wing punditry.

Thursday, July 12, 2012

So, you want to be like France ?

    By Donna Cole

 The NY Times' Paul Krugman was on CNBC's Squawk Box yesterday (7/11) talking about his ideas of what the government should do to fix the economy (video, runs just over 13 minutes). Krugman is probably the loudest voice of Keynesian economic theory in America, if not the world. He advocates things like massive government spending in times of economic trouble with governments taking on massive amounts of debt in order to get the cash to spend, then worry about that debt later when the economy improves, and high levels of taxation to support a welfare state. Keynesian economists always have this pay it later attitude, or as Keynes himself famously said, "In the long run we are all dead." He was basically saying not to worry about debt.