Home The Book Dr Articles Products Message Boards Journal Articles Search Our Surveys Surgery ESWT Dr Messages Find Good Drs video

Ed

Posted by Julie on 2/27/03 at 01:37 (110948)

Ed

Last Saturday I told you of my disquiet and dismay regarding your debating technique. Later that day, realising that I had been personally offensive and had thus let myself down, I apologised: not for what I had said, because I had worded it carefully and believed it to be true, but for saying it publicly.

My purpose in my first post was to encourage you to look at yourself and the way you conduct yourself in discussion with others. My purpose in the second was to defuse and calm a situation that had got out of control and was threatening to wreck this board as a place of safety. It was, as well, my way of acknowledging my share of the responsibility for the situation.

Since then, I have not read the board, but have been told in several private emails that my first post was accurate, moderate and not offensive, and that there had been no need for the second. There have also been posts from others, both before and since mine, couched in words less moderate than mine, saying the same things I had said.

Yesterday, having been told about the new unpleasantness in the 'Final Post' thread, I reluctantly read it and saw that neither of my purposes had been fulfilled.

You'd said you were going to drop the discussion, as I had, but I find that you are still involved, still declaring your impartial loyalty to the 'facts' and, by high-handed implication, the wrongheadedness of people who don't share your view of them. I am sorry to see that.

And you are still proclaiming your compassion, despite the evidence of the insults and jibes you've levelled at others here, and despite your underhanded digs at people's attempts to share their views and their vision of a different scenario for Iraq and the world.

You appear to be quite unaware of what you have done and of the effect it has had

I am not going to read the board again. If you don't feel that you owe the community of the board an acknowledgement, perhaps even an apology, for your part in this most wounding, damaging conflict and for the way you have treated individuals, I pray that you will at least now drop the discussion as you said you would on Saturday, and do your part in leaving the board to recover.

Julie

Re: Ed

Ed Davis, DPM on 2/27/03 at 12:29 (110995)

Julie:
I have not continued the discussion with the people involved, nevertheless, I will respond to personal attacks which have been perpetrated by Nancy, whom, for some reason you feel needs to be defended.
I have responded to posts form BG recently and believe that I have the right to do so even if Nancy or you do not agree with such opinions. I have strictly adhered to the issues. Again, you seem to believe in censorship for the benefit of a few individuals on this board whom you imply need to be protected from my views.

This board is here for the purpose of expressing ones views. It is not for the views of exclusively one group of individuals. Again, I will not engage in personal attacks and wonder why you support individuals who do as that is in violation of the spirit and purpose of any discussion board.
Ed

Re: Changed my mind.

Ed Davis, DPM on 2/27/03 at 13:21 (111004)

Here is a good article that appeared today in Newsmax.com.
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/articles/2003/2/26/124459.shtml
I think it sheds some light on the 'antiwar' movement. Considering the attitudes of the self-appointed censors of the board, I no longer see the need to hold back information for the satisfaction of a few.
Ed

Re: Changed my mind.

Ed Davis, DPM on 2/27/03 at 13:23 (111005)

correction:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/2/26/12449.shtml

Re: Changed my mind.

Ed Davis, DPM on 2/27/03 at 13:26 (111006)

One may have to click through the newsmax.com site to get to the article but will try again:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/2/26/124459.shtml

Re: Changed my mind.

Ed Davis, DPM on 2/27/03 at 13:27 (111007)

That link works.
Ed

Re: Changed my mind.

BGCPed on 2/27/03 at 14:50 (111020)

I have an idea. How about we start an email petition to ask that hollywood limosine liberals volunteer to be human shields. Dr Ed you could form the language and some other net savvy folks could get the email addy for Martin Sheen, Sean Penn (be careful he may punch you)Babs Striesand, Genie Garofalo, Susan Sarandon etc.

We could e-sign it and forward it to any folks that would like to forward it. Maybe they could build a hollywood spa for them to hang out in while they send a body double to stand in for them.

psssst dont tell Martin Sheen he isnt really the President, only one on tv. He doesnt know and they are afraid to tell him

Re: Changed my mind.

Ed Davis, DPM on 2/27/03 at 14:53 (111022)

BG:

I think they would all send 'body doubles.'
Ed

Re: What is wrong with this picture...?

Larson on 2/27/03 at 15:39 (111027)

A good article from 'Accuracy in Media,' a watchdog of the press. One has to weigh the options. Allow free expression or censor opinions to protect the sensibilities of a few. This is a big issue. Millions of lives are at stake. Freedom for millions is at stake. Those who cannot comprehend the issue should not fault those who are willing to engage in productive discussion. Most posters here have except for three individuals who have for some reason try to turn every discussion into a personal attack and then fault those who simply are presenting the information. What is wrong with this picture?
Larson
Editor: Cliff Kincaid Associate Editor: Notra Trulock
2003 Report # 3 February 19, 2003

COMMUNISTS RUN ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT
THIS ISSUE:
COMMUNISTS RUN ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT
Boosting Baghdad
Homeland Security?
As American As Apple Pie
An Infamous Commercial
The Workers World Party Role
North Korea Link
Communist Rant
C-SPAN Goes Overboard
More Cover-Up
Don't Ask, Don't Tell

What You Can Do
CLIFF'S NOTES

As the U.S. faces escalating crises in Iraq and North Korea, a growing 'anti-war' movement backed by Hollywood and much of the media is working to undermine public support for American foreign policy and portray the Bush administration as more of a threat to the world than the regimes in Baghdad or Pyongyang. The big media, with a few exceptions, ignored the role played by communists who have traveled to Iraq, North Korea and Cuba in organizing the January 18 anti-war rally in Washington, D.C.

Boosting Baghdad

This was a classic case of communists using front groups to attract what Lenin called 'useful idiots' to their cause. Organizers claimed a turnout of 500,000, but the figure of 150,000-still an impressive number-was closer to the truth. Held in conjunction with similar protests in a dozen cities around the world, it was designed to give the impression domestic-ally and abroad that Americans are increasingly opposed to the Bush policy on Iraq.

By conveying the impression that this was a 'middle class' gathering of ordinary Americans, the media greatly assisted the communists who organized the event. They also made it appealing to countless others. It took years for the anti-Vietnam War movement, backed by Hanoi, to achieve such success. This turnout was achieved before a war on Iraq had even begun. The dishonest coverage of the protest may account for a reported decline in public support for a U.S. military strike on Iraq.

The Iraqi regime regards such demonstrations as critical to its survival and gives them publicity in its own government-controlled media. It called the rally 'an emphatic dissent against preparations for war in Iraq…' The communist regime in North Korea, as well as Palestinian terrorists, must have been encouraged by the protests as well. Next to America, Israel was the most maligned target of the demonstrators.

Communist banners at the rally were prominently displayed, and copies of communist newspapers, literature and publications were available (some for a price). The rally included representatives of Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam, Progressive Labor Party, Freedom Road Socialist Organization, World Socialist Web Site, Cuba Solidarity, Spartacist League, Revolutionary Communist Party USA, the Lyndon LaRouche Presidential Campaign, the Communist Party USA and Muslim and pro-Palestinian groups.

The communist banners and literature were ignored by the major media and C-SPAN. Some photos of what they ignored are included in this AIM report and more have been posted on the AIM Web site.

January 18 coincided with the holiday weekend commemorating the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who turned against the Vietnam War under the influence of his own communist advisers.

Homeland Security?

Having abolished the Subversive Activities Control Board and congressional committees that exposed communist efforts to aid our enemies during the Cold War, we are now heavily dependent on the news media to expose the communists who are trying to undermine our national security. So those who sympathize with evil and brutal enemies of America are free to organize support for them on American soil. The media should expose this, but show little interest in doing so.

On Jan. 24 the N.Y. Times ran a story about some of the groups that participated in the rally being concerned about the influence of the Workers World Party, which the Times said 'has roots in the Stalin-era Soviet Union.' ANSWER called this 'Red baiting.' Some who attended the rally might have stayed away had they known of this in advance.

As American As Apple Pie

The evening news coverage of the rally showed that the news media had no interest in exposing the organizers and their motives. ABC's World News Tonight devoted a full five minutes to the protests in the U.S. and around the world. Anchor Terry Moran introduced a story by correspondent Lisa Sylvester, who said the demonstrators were 'black and white, Democrat and Republican, young and old.' She interviewed a couple who were concerned about their Marine son. A separate story by reporter Geoff Morrell high-lighted a father and daughter who had come from North Carolina, with 'soccer moms and military veterans' from their church. These were presented as typical of rally participants. Nothing was said about the America-haters who organized it and controlled the program.

The coverage by CBS and NBC was no better. NBC's Dan Lothian said the protesters included Vietnam veterans and others waving American flags. He said they were 'children, parents, politicians, and entertainment stars.' On CBS, Joie Chen described the crowd as 'young, old, veterans, veteran activists; different values, different views, but united in an effort to stop a war before it starts.'

An Infamous Commercial

On January 17, the day before the rally, CNN ran four stories or interviews promoting the event. CNN Newsnight highlighted Eli Parriser of Moveon.org, a group opposed to the Bush Iraq policy. It didn't mention that Moveon.org was started as an effort to save President Clinton from impeach-ment.

On ABC's This Week program on Sunday, Jan. 19, host George Stephanopoulos, a former top Clinton aide, aired a Moveon.org commercial attacking Bush's Iraq policy. It showed a little girl plucking the petals off a daisy just before a mushroom cloud from a nuclear explosion appears. It mimicked the notorious ad that Lyndon Johnson used in the 1964 campaign to suggest that Barry Goldwater, his Republican opponent, might start a nuclear war. To the Moveon.org crowd, Bush poses a greater danger than Saddam Hussein. This was one of many free airings of this infamous ad.

The Workers World Party Role

The media knew that two leading World Party (WWP), Brian Becker and Larry Holmes, organized and orchestrated the day's events. Holmes served as an emcee for much of the day. This was not seen as newsworthy.

The December 14, 2000, edition of the Workers World newspaper identified Becker and Holmes as members of the WWP secretariat. Becker was a key organizer of the Jan. 18 rally. He gave a speech and was publicly thanked for his prominent role. He was in the staging area, where he gave numerous interviews to the press. As the affair wound down, he led a march from the Capitol to the Navy Yard.

A C-SPAN producer interviewed him as he directed the march along the 15-block route to the Washington Navy Yard. Becker told C-SPAN that they were going there to expose 'weapons of mass destruction' in the U.S.

North Korea Link

An Internet search discloses Becker's connection to one of the worst regimes on the planet-the Kim Jong Il dictatorship in North Korea. This is revealed in this dispatch from Pyongyang on February 24, 2000.

'Kim Jung Rin, secretary of the Central Committee of the Worker's Party of Korea [WPK], today met and conversed with the delegation of the Workers World Party of the United States headed by Brian Becker, a member of its secretariat. At the meeting the head of the delegation said that the Korean people are firmly defending socialism despite the continued isolation and suffocation moves of the imperialists, adding this is attributable to the tested leadership of the WPK led by General Secretary Kim Jong Il. He noted that his party would continue to wage a vigorous struggle for the pullback of the U.S. forces from South Korea and intensify the movement for solidarity with the WPK.'

Becker, who also serves as chairman of the U.S. Get Out of Korea Committee, was involved in a 'Korea Truth Commission' project to expose U.S. 'crimes against the Korean people.' The group insists that South Korea is under 'occupation' by the U.S. and that North Korea was 'liberated.' Its Web site features commentary from the WWP.

Established in 1958 by a communist named Sam Marcy, the WWP has taken up the role that used to be played by the Moscow-controlled Communist Party USA, which has diminished in importance since the demise of the old Soviet Union. But like the CPUSA, the WWP believes in working with the Democratic Party and liberal-left groups that form its base of support.

Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., is a link between them. He embraced the Soviet-backed World Peace Council during the Cold War and was the only Congressman to speak at the rally.

Communist Rant

Journalists who stayed long enough to get something more than a sound bite could not help but notice the vicious anti-American rhetoric of several speakers. The first speaker, an American Indian named Moonannum James, accused Columbus of 'genocide' and urged the release from prison of Leonard Peltier, who was convicted of murdering two FBI agents in 1975.

A Muslim 'Holy Man' named Imam Mousa declared, 'It's revolution time, brothers and sisters. We got to get rid of the system.' He called President Bush a 'greedy murderer.'

Jennifer Wager of the 'Committee to Free the Cuban Five' made an appeal on behalf of five Cubans convicted and sentenced to prison in the U.S. in 2001 for operating as foreign agents for Fidel Castro and engaging in a conspiracy to commit espionage and penetrate U.S. military bases.

Yoomi Jeong of the 'Korea Truth Commission' used her speech to accuse American soldiers based in South Korea of murdering two girls and escaping punishment. The girls were struck accidentally by an armored vehicle on a narrow road. She claimed the U.S. had 'blocked' North Korea from buying food 'so its people go hungry.' Communism impoverished North Korea from its start. In recent years both South Korea and the U.S. have poured food and fuel into the North to alleviate the suffering, but little of it got to the starving people.

There were repeated attacks on American 'imperialism' and references to 'political prisoners' in the U.S. such as convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal. Saying that Republicans had impeached Bill Clinton 'for nothing,' former Attorney General Ramsey Clark called for the impeachment of President Bush. Clark, a major figure in the 'anti-war' movement, served as a lawyer for Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, who is serving a life sentence for his role in the World Trade Center bombing of 1993.

C-SPAN Goes Overboard

C-SPAN, which has a reputation for airing all sides, began its coverage of the Jan. 18 rally with a 50-minute interview with Larry Holmes, one of the WWP organizers, and Medea Benjamin, one of the speakers. No one was invited to give a different point of view and there was no probing of their ideology. C-SPAN then covered the rally from 11:00 a.m. until 2:30 p.m. It re-aired portions of it at 8:00 p.m., 11:00 p.m. and 5:30 a.m., a total of 11 hours.

In a sense, this was a public service for those who could watch the C-SPAN coverage and contrast the radical speeches on the air with what didn't get reported in the 'mainstream' media. But C-SPAN ignored the patriotic counter-demonstration, which drew about 100 people, staged by FreeRepublic.com, and it failed to interview anyone on the air who could rip the mask off the communist-inspired event.

When a viewer called C-SPAN to complain about excessive coverage of the anti-American rally, the host said it was designed to balance programs that conveyed the Bush administration view. There is ample discussion in public forums of the anti-war case made by responsible Americans whose loyalty to this country is not questioned. Giving so much time to extremist opinions and not informing viewers that they come from admirers of Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Il and their ilk casts a cloud over C-SPAN's motive.

C-SPAN said on the screen that the event was sponsored by International ANSWER, the acronym for Act Now to Stop War and End Racism. It did not disclose the ideology of those who were behind it. Officially, this group 'made the call' for the January 18 'mobilization' following anti-war demonstrations on Oct. 26 that brought out a claimed 200,000 people in Washington and 100,000 in San Francisco. But the key personnel of ANSWER are also with the International Action Center (IAC), a group founded by Ramsey Clark and staffed by members of the WWP.

Becker, for example, is described as a 'principal organizer' or 'spokes-man' for International ANSWER and a 'joint chairman' or co-director of the IAC. Holmes has also been described as a spokesman for ANSWER and co-director of the IAC. Together with Clark, they function as a team. Becker and Clark traveled to Baghdad in 1998 and staged an anti-American protest there. Saving Saddam Hussein's regime has been a principal cause for them ever since.

C-SPAN aired the message of those who hate America and our political and economic systems for 11 hours, serving, in effect, as the voice of our enemies. Two days after the rally, C-SPAN was still featuring a link on its Web site to International ANSWER.

The only hint of Becker's communist connection came when pro-American demonstrators could be heard and seen on C-SPAN asking how much money he got from Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il. One patriotic protester could also be heard referring to the WWP role in the protests.

C-SPAN and others ignored the official list of endorsers, including the Communist Party USA and the National Lawyers Guild, which was identified as the 'Legal Bulwark of the Communist Party' by the House Committee on Un-American Activities in 1950. If we had a congressional committee like that today, it might look into the covert role played by the WWP in the anti-war movement and the source of their funds. But would its findings be reported? Some of this is available on the Internet and in the publications of the radical groups, but our media, including C-SPAN ignore it.

More Cover-Up

In an AIM Report last June, we noted that the Washington Post and other media had concealed the role of Brian Becker and company in an April 20, 2002, pro-Palestinian demonstration in Washington. We noted that Becker had visited Cuba, where he delivered a WWP statement that said, 'Comrade Fidel Castro asserts that the preservation of socialist values is of decisive importance. We could not agree more...it is crucial that revolutionaries fight tooth and nail for their values, their principles and the revolutionary conceptions put forward by Marxism and Leninism.'

Washington Post reporter Manny Fernandez, who also covered the April 20, 2002, event, consistently refuses to identify the communists behind the Jan. 18 march. He alluded to the issue by quoting other participants as saying 'the views of the organizers are of little consequence to them and that the larger anti-war movement is bigger than any organizing group.' A December 10 Post article by David Montgomery highlighted them as 'Peace Warriors.' The Post ran nine photos of the Jan. 18 demonstration, but not one gave a hint as to the communist presence.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Few, if any, journalists asked participants in the rally how they felt about the propriety of supporting an event organized by communists. AIM did. We asked Medea Benjamin of Global Exchange, one of the more respectable speakers, about the role played by WWP activists Brian Becker and Larry Holmes in the demonstration. She said, 'I know them,' and that it was 'great' that somebody took the lead in organizing the protests. However, she insisted that it has 'gone way beyond' the WWP.

If C-SPAN and others in the media did not want to confront the communists involved in the rally and expose the key role that they played in organizing it, at least they could have directed their cameras to the big banners on the periphery of the crowd that are shown in this AIM Report. They give a good indication of the ideology of the prime movers.

What You Can Do

Send the enclosed cards or your own cards and letters to C-SPAN CEO Brian Lamb, Washington Post Publisher Bo Jones and N.Y. Times Executive Editor Howell Raines.

CLIFF'S NOTES By Cliff Kincaid

WE WERE SHOCKED ON JANUARY 14 WHEN AIM CHAIRMAN REED Irvine suffered a heart attack. But he survived, and with the help of some excellent medical care, was-incredibly-back to work just a few days later. I'm tempted to say that you have to see it to believe it. How could anyone make such an amazing recovery? But those of us who know Reed Irvine understand how and why he could bounce back like that. He doesn't want to give up the fight! Reed gave me my first job out of college in the summer of 1978 when I came to Washington, D.C. I have seen him battle the Big Media and I have worked with him in various capacities ever since. There is no one with more persistence and strength in the conservative movement. Reed appreciates all of the kind communications and wishes for recovery.

ONE OF THE MANY BENEFITS OF THIS JOB IS WORKING WITH PEOPLE LIKE REED IRVINE and Notra Trulock. Consider this: 'A former Energy Department intelligence chief charges in his new book that fired Los Alamos nuclear scientist Wen Ho Lee provided sensitive weapons data to China during unreported meetings with nuclear-weapons scientists.' That was the lead in a January 17 Washington Times story by Bill Gertz about Note's new book on the Chinese espionage scandal. The book, Code Name Kindred Spirit, is generating enormous controversy, and Note is doing many media interviews. His book complements the story in this AIM Report-how communists operating in America are working behind-the-scenes to subvert America. Publishers Weekly says Trulock 'provides a unique look into the American intelligence community and an unsettling perspective on the lax attitude toward national security. Wen Ho Lee's defensive memoir grabbed plenty of headlines, but Trulock's account has a disturbing ring of truth.'

IN A STORY ABOUT NEW COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS IN CONGRESS, REPORTER Juliet Eilperin of the Washington Post noted that Rep. Christopher Cox, a senior Republican with expertise in international affairs, will head the new Homeland Security Committee, and that Cox in 1998 'headed a select committee probe into whether China stole U.S. nuclear and military technology…' But that statement leaves in doubt what the Cox Committee found. In fact, the committee found that China 'has stolen classified design information on the United States' most advanced thermonuclear weapons. These thefts of nuclear secrets from our national weapons laboratories enabled the PRC to design, develop, and successfully test modern strategic nuclear weapons sooner than would otherwise have been possible. The stolen U.S. nuclear secrets give the PRC design information on thermonuclear weapons on a par with our own.' This was not only the conclusion of Cox but of every member of the House Select Committee on China. The Cox committee's classified report was unanimously approved by its five Republican and four Democratic members after a six-month probe. So the idea that there is some doubt on the findings of the Cox Committee seems to rest with the Washington Post alone.

POST REPORTERS ALSO IGNORED THE FACTS ABOUT THE COMMUNIST ROLE IN THE January 18 march. On January 22, on the Post op-ed page, columnist Michael Kelly discussed the WWP role and noted that the New York Times had ignored it. But the Post has some explaining to do as well. That is why we are asking you to write to Post publisher Bo Jones. And that is perhaps why Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation suggested in a recent column that either the new Department of Homeland Security or Congress should hold hearings and compel organizers of the march to testify, 'to find out how these neo-communists are financed.' This is not about supporting or opposing the war. It is about recognizing that communist agents with international connections are manipulating American public opinion and the media.

SOME DEMONSTRATORS AT THE JANUARY 18 RALLY CARRIED UNITED NATIONS FLAGS. One sign said, 'Have faith in the U.N.,' which had ignored Saddam's violations of U.N. resolutions for ten years. Some in the media say that we need the backing of the United Nations to go to war against Iraq. But the U.N. has once again demonstrated that it has no credibility. The terrorist state of Libya has been elected to lead the top U.N. human rights body, the 53-nation U.N. Human Rights Commission. The Libyan candidate, Najat al-Hajjaji, won 33 votes versus three against and 17 abstentions. A break with the U.N. over Iraq should lead to a necessary review of our entire relationship with the U.N. and the 'international community.' But many in the media treat the world body as a sacred cow.

WE NOTE IN THIS REPORT THAT THE FIRST SPEAKER AT THE 'ANTI-WAR' RALLY CALLED for the release from prison of American Indian activist Leonard Peltier. The http://www.noparolepeltier.com Web site notes that, 'Any reasonable review will show that Peltier is indeed guilty.' He received two life sentences, plus seven years for an armed escape, for participating in the murders of two FBI Special Agents, Jack Coler and Ron Williams, in 1975. On January 12, 2003, Jack Coler would have celebrated his fifty-sixth birthday. The Web site notes that he 'had two young sons at the time of his death. The youngest perhaps only remembers warm hugs and kisses, the oldest, still then just a toddler, may remember the first adult male he knew as his father. Had Jack not died a horrible and violent death, along with his partner Ron Williams, he might now be enjoying retirement, the benefits of a productive public service career, and his grandchildren. Peltier on the other hand is alive, and although confined, can still communicate and look forward to occasional visits from his own grandchildren.' Peltier has been a cause célèbre of the communists for years.

CNSNEWS.COM BROKE THE STORY OF HOW RAMSEY CLARK, A FEATURED SPEAKER AT the rally, had compared Jesus Christ to a terrorist during a media event to promote the demonstration. 'The Christian Church overwhelmingly-there are exceptions-who choose to call Mohammed a terrorist. They could call Jesus a terrorist too,' said Clark. 'I mean, he was pretty tough on money lenders a time or two.' Clark's comments were a reference to remarks made by Rev. Jerry Falwell in an October 6 broadcast of the CBS program 60 Minutes, in which he called Mohammed a 'terrorist.' Falwell apologized under heavy criticism and pressure, even though Mohammed's violent background is a matter of record. Jesus may have thrown the money lenders out of the temple, but this hardly constituted terrorism. He refused to advocate or take up arms against those who persecuted him. Clark has not apologized, and a Wall Street Journal editorial noted that most of the major media decided not to report on Clark's crack. Liberal bias anyone?

A NOTE FROM REED-Two weeks ago today, on January 14 at about 4 p.m., my heart stopped beating. Fortunately, I was in the emergency ward at the Georgetown University Hospital. Immediate steps were taken to restart it, and a catheter was inserted into a large artery that was blocked. Three days later I was released. I was well enough to go to my office to answer an important e-mail, and I have been here every working day since then. I am writing this to thank all who have sent their good wishes and to explain why I made what one of the nurses called 'a miraculous recovery.' I was standing in my office talking with some of the staff when I felt some mild discomfort in my left triceps and some lightheadedness. I lay down on a sofa, saying that I might be having an attack. There was talk of calling my doctor, but what saved me was Roger Aronoff and Charles Rozier deciding to call 911. An ambulance took me to the hospital in about 15 minutes, monitoring my heart and alerting the emergency-ward team. My heart stopped about 15 minutes later. If I had tried to locate my doctor, I could easily have wasted those precious minutes. The best advice he could have given me would be to call 911, and I might not have reached the hospital before my heart stopped. The American Heart Association says that annually at least 250,000 people die of heart attacks before they get to a hospital. Many deaths could be prevented by faster action. A Heart Association flyer has a graphic showing some heart attack symptoms. It is a good list, but I told my doctors at the hospital that if I had seen it the day before I might not have realized that I was having an attack. It had a prominent graphic showing pain radiating out from the center of the chest to the arms and neck. I didn't experience that. It mentioned lightheadedness but not the mild discomfort I felt in my arm. I now advise everyone to familiarize themselves with all the symptoms and not to hesitate to call 911 if they experience any of them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Like What You Read?

Back To AIM Report Section

AIM Main Page

Re: What is wrong with this picture...?

BGCPed on 2/27/03 at 15:59 (111032)

Very interesting Larson. Good job.

Re: What is wrong with this picture...?

Leon S. on 2/27/03 at 16:59 (111033)

I would like to refer people who haven't already read it, to Tom Friedman's column in Wednesday's NY Times. He refers to the European war protest marchers who's signs never refered to caring for the Iraqis but about the Palestinians. It was more an indictment of Europe's growing anti-semitism than anything else. Here is the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/26/opinion/26FRIE.html

In reading the long post about the makeup of the protesters there was alot of referals to communist groups. Does anyone here recall that the communist Soviet Union and all it's communist satellites are no longer a threat to anyone since they don't exist anymore? The only nations that I am aware of that call themselves communist are Cuba and N. Korea. The former is certainly irrelevant and the latter is very dangerous but hardly representative of any of the marchers. The protesters that are referred to are fringe groups that come out of the woodwork whenever there is an occasion to parade their ridiculous views. They belong to anti-American organizations but have no influence over anything and shouldn't be taken seriously. Unfortunately, they pollute the views of the people who do have legitimate questions about the policies of this administration. That is the right of all Americans. Just as the conservatives had the right to protest Clinton's policies in Bosnia (or did they at the time?) other Americans (and they don't have to be branded as liberals or anything other than Americans) have the right to protest now. By lumping all the protesters as communists because of these lunatics is not fair. Just because someone disagrees with the administration's policies does not make them communist. It absolutely makes them American!

Re: What is wrong with this picture...?

john h on 2/27/03 at 17:33 (111037)

I am sure most of the protesters were legit but as with all protest their is always an element that just protest to be protesting. It could be a protest against motherhood and apple pie and there will be some people show up. You rarely see a protest 'For' something. It is usually 'Against' something. why is that? You got me. I do not know that any informed person would agree with 'all' the administrations policies. I do not. You just have to look at the two major opposing view points and take measure and cast your lot..

Re: What is wrong with this picture...?

Ed Davis, DPM on 2/27/03 at 17:36 (111038)

Leon:
Friedman's views are interesting particularly as it pertains to the Europeans. He is a bit unfair likening our view of the Arab countries as big 'gas stations,' claiming we have no interest in democracy there. We have dual interests that sometimes compete but even when taking a dim view of our objectives, democracies generally favor free commerce which in turn the US supports. As such, we have both altruistic and financial reasons to support the establishment of democracy in the Arab world and elsewhere.

I am unsure why you are ignoring China. It is one of the biggest countries in the world, in terms of territory and population and maintains that it has a Communist system despite inroads by capitalism.

I would like it better if the AIM article substituted the word 'leftists' for 'Communists.' 'True' Communists (if such a thing ever existed) represent only a segment of the radical left. The left appears to have an agenda that is anti-Semitic, anti-American values. One thing that is incredible is how many on the left appear to support Islamism, a philosophy which is anti-American, anti-democracy, anti-Jewish, anti-Christian, anti-women's rights. It is an agenda that many in the Hollywood establishment support as well as many in the media which is influential in the formation of public opinion.
Ed

Re: What is wrong with this picture...?

BGCPed on 2/27/03 at 17:54 (111044)

What does China call it self, a democracy?

Re: What is wrong with this picture...?

BGCPed on 2/27/03 at 18:03 (111046)

Thats because many of the hollywood elite/left are very ignorant of real world politics. As I said before I would put more credence in the political views of Moe the bartender from the Simpsons than a hollywood person.

Example: Sean Penn, he goes to Iraq where he is played by Saddam like a fiddle. After a painstaking investigation proclaims that they dont have weapons and we should try talking/inspections. Sean, you did the inspections yourself and didnt find anything so why need more?
This from a guy that punches out photographers and beat his wife.

Did anyone see him on Larry King? He spoke at one point for about 4 minutes straight and I thought he was on drugs or having a t.i.a. It made no sense at all and even Larry just looked at him.

Anyone remember Fast Times at Ridgemont High? His finest role was when after smoking pot he hit himself in the head with his shoe and proclaimed 'dude im so wasted' Now that was some fine acting

Re: What is wrong with this picture...?

Leon S. on 2/27/03 at 18:23 (111050)

I did forget to include Communist China, but as I said about N. Korea, they are hardly represented by the radicals who were protesting. In fact, as I look at it, no communist government was really represented in the protests. What I am trying to do is reinforce the point that it is every American's right to protest the policies of whatever administration is in office. As John has frequently said, the beauty of our government, asside from constitutionally allowing us to protest, is that every four years, we can vote the bastards out if we like and the other side can try and do better...Our independence was initiated by protests and at the time, there were no communists to blame. So let's stop branding everyone that protests as communists and recognize that people can have different opinions and are free to exercise their constitutional rights by peacefully demonstrating those differences.

Re: To Ed

Kathy G on 2/27/03 at 18:48 (111056)

Okay, I've held my tongue (fingers) long enough. You have utterly shocked me with the way you have attacked other posters on these boards. You are entitled to your opinion which you reached based on research you've done. Not everyone will reach the same conclusion as you. That's why we have two parties in this country. That's why we have debate. That's why we have elections. But to be so nasty and so personally derisive is inexcusable. I don't expect it from a medical professional but then again, I wouldn't expect it from my twelve-year-old nephew, either.

You have hurt two people of whom I am especially fond; Nancy S and Julie. You must have missed school the day that they taught that it is all right to debate issues as long as you do so with respect and kindness.

I have lost all respect for you and I hold you, and a few others, but especially you, responsible for spoiling the wonderful community we had on these boards. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Re: What is wrong with this picture...?

BGCPed on 2/27/03 at 19:23 (111064)

That is their right. I dont have a problem with people voicing and protesting. When it borders at times on treason or has an affect on our safety I get a bit miffed. I also hate hipocrisy. Where were all these liberals when Saddam was killing and raping? Why dont any of the people live there? they should walk a mile in the shoes of the average Iraqi.

What is now being done is a direct result of a poinon that was allowed to fester. 2 ways to view Saddam and some other crazed leaders over there. They should be DEAD for what they have already done. They should be DEAD for what they still want or will do if they get the chance.

Re: To Ed

BGCPed on 2/27/03 at 19:33 (111069)

Sorry but this is a tired point of view. This may lump me into the meanie catagory but nobody can be chased off. People leave. I dont recall reading anything being directed at an one person. I dont recall seeing anyone say 'why dont you leave' Scott can do it and thats all.

I am sure this will be taken wrong but at this point I dont care. I have had several shots taken at me on here. I dont recall his name but a guy that posted several months back provided many good points. He mentioned being a cyclist. He left due to the same type of brow beating. My god nobody is making racial or hate comments, just voicing strong opinions on an emotional subject. A subject that has been argued strong from both the left and right.

Let me ask this. If Scott made another page that was called HOT POTATO that was dedicated to politics and other hot subjects would you be happy? Would ther be some that still couldnt let it flow and claim to be driven away? Is it simply the fact that this specific part of the board is sacred and viewed as a private club to be controlled by a few?

The above were just a few rhetorical questions. I would hope they will be viewed and answered with open minds. Please feel free to comment.

Re: What is wrong with this picture...?

Ed Davis, DPM on 2/27/03 at 21:02 (111084)

BG:

I do my best to try to ignore the Hollywood crowd. Their talent in acting makes them no more qualified to lead public opinion than anyone else. The news media is a different story since the public entrusts them as an information source.

If you get a chance, pick up a book entitled: 'Bias, A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distorts the News,' by Bernard Goldberg. It is a New York Times number 1 bestseller and is now out in paperback. Bernard Goldberg is the winner of seven Emmy Awards and had served nearly 30 years as a reporter and producer for CBS News. It is eye opening because it comes from an insider who is not exactly an ideologic conservative.

Goldberg, on page 129, lists a survey:
'...in 1996 the Freedom Foundation and the Roper Center released the results of a now famous story of 139 Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents......What these two groups found was that Washington journalists are far more liberal and far more Democratic than the typical American voter:
--89% of the journalists said they voted for Bill Clinton in 1992, compared with 42% of the non-journalistic voters.
--7% of the journalists voted for George Bush; 37% of the voters did.
--2% of the news people voted for Ross Perot while 19% of the electorate did.
Eighty nine percent voted for Bill Clinton. That is incredible when you think about it. There is hardly a candidate in the entire United States who carries his or her district with 89% of the vote. This is way beyond landslide numbers. The only politicians who get numbers like that are Fidel Castro or Saddam Hussein.'
'What party do journalists identify with?
--50% said they were Democrats.
--4% said they were Republicans.
When they were asked, 'How do you characterize your political orientation?' 61% said 'liberal' or 'moderate to liberal.' Only 9% said they were 'conservative' or 'moderate to conservative.''
Ed

Re: To Ed

Nancy N on 2/27/03 at 21:06 (111086)

I'm sorry, but I have to take issue with a comment that keeps coming up here.

BG says 'This may lump me into the meanie catagory but nobody can be chased off.' I beg to differ. People can indeed be chased off, and have been on several occasions--including this one. Yes, it's true that nobody put a gun to their head and made them leave. But conditions can be made so miserable for them that they have no choice but to leave in order to preserve any sense of self-respect or positive mental outlook--especially important on a support board, where people come to heal (a fact that seems to have been lost in the shuffle). BG, you're using an argument that's often used in cases of sexual harrassment after someone has quit a job, and if it doesn't stand up in court, it certainly shouldn't stand up here.

Nobody is asking that people change their views, or not discuss politics on this board. But they are asking that it be done civilly. I've read Ed's recent posts saying that these discussions should not attack anyone and blaming the liberal side (whatever that is) for name-calling, but the recent attacks I've seen have all come from the conservative side--and now that Paula, Julie, and Nancy and I haven't been posting, I don't think there's much left-wing debate being presented here, so I don't know how you can possibly deny that it's happened on BOTH sides. Does nobody actually read the 'Be Nice' above the Post Message button??? For the love of God, people have recently been derided because they haven't mentioned feet (on a Social board, where most discussion recently has had nothing to do with feet anyway!) or, even worse, because they can't spell Plantar Fasciitis??!! I was shocked and disgusted when I saw that post. Do we now require a certain spelling proficiency to be allowed to post here? That would get rid of a lot of posters, but maybe that's what you all want??

The argument that people leave, but can't be chased off is partly true--it's obviously an individual choice--but it's mostly an attempt to deflect the blame and deny any guilt by those who did the chasing. It's a very low argument. And I can only echo Kathy's statements--you should be ashamed of yourselves. I certainly have no respect for you, whether you hide behind a medical degree or not. And now I'm leaving, because I have better things to do with my time than read a lot of sniping, low-brow name-calling that is supposed to pass for an intelligent debate. Yes, it's my choice, but let's be crystal clear that it's one I wouldn't have felt I needed to make if the debate had stayed clean.

I don't know who you're doing to attack once you've chased all the folks who disagree with you off the board. You deserve each other.

Re: To Ed

Ed Davis, DPM on 2/27/03 at 21:09 (111087)

Kathy:
I have not attacked ANY poster on this board. I have simply stated my opinions. I and BG have both been personally attacked and the need arose to defend ourselves. Everything posted in cyberspace can be logged if one goes through the posts, I have stated my opinions on issues and three posters here (now 4 to include yourself) have attacked me personally for stating my opinions.

Hitler practiced the principle of the big lie. If you repeat something often enough, people will start to believe it It sounds like you and him actually have something in common. THERE YOU GO MY FIRST PERSONAL ATTACK on someone -- so now you can say I have actually done so and not be a liar!
Ed

Re: To Ed

Ed Davis, DPM on 2/27/03 at 21:13 (111089)

Nancy:
Only one problem. Exactly who made things 'miserable?' Why does presenting one's point of view make some people miserable?

The only thing that has made things miserable have been the incessant personal attacks on myself and BG for doing nothing more than expressing our views on issues which are being discussed all across the nation.
Ed

Re: the "big lie"

Larson on 2/27/03 at 21:22 (111092)

Ed:
Golly gee, why do you have to be so factual? Oohh, you sound mean spirited so I may run away from this board forever. You finally had the courage to do it. You actually attacked someone personally! At least you are no longer making liars of your accusers.
Larson

Re: What is wrong with this picture...?

Ed Davis, DPM on 2/27/03 at 23:03 (111105)

A little more on this....

February 28, 2003
Guess What: Saddam's Plans Revealed

Home · Late-Night Jokes · Archives · Cartoons · News Alerts · U.S. News Links · PriorityGrams
Int'l News Links · MoneyNews · Contact Us · NewsMax Store · Classifieds · Get Your Site Listed

With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff
For the story behind the story...


Click Here

Click Here

Click Here

Thursday Feb. 27, 2003; 11:40 p.m. EST
Americans tell Gallup: Media Still Way Too Liberal

Liberal opinionmakers have been trying to convince their audiences lately that conservative news sources like the Rush Limbaugh Show, the Fox News Channel and the Washington Times now dominate the U.S. media.

But a Gallup survey released Wednesday found that three out of four Americans who say the media has an ideological bias complain that the press is still way too liberal.

'45 percent say that the media are too liberal, while only 15 percent say the media are too conservative,' Gallup reported on it's Web site. 36 percent of those surveyed told Gallup they perceived the press as ideologically balanced.

While respondents who found that the media was too liberal outnumbered those who perceived a conservative bias by three-to-one, Gallup also said that 'Americans are roughly as likely to say that the media's news coverage favors the Republican Party as the Democratic Party.'

Still, the three-to-one finding is likely to disappoint Democrats like Tom Daschle, Al Gore and Bill Clinton, who have been complaining of late that the American media is in the grip of the vast right wing conspiracy. The conservative tilt is supposedly so pronounced that wealthy Democrats are now raising millions to bankroll their own liberal talk radio network.

But if the Gallup survey is correct, most Americans are already getting as much liberal news coverage as they can stand - and then some.

News of the Gallup finding that most Americans think the press is still too liberal has yet to be covered by the liberal press.

Gallup pollsters contacted 1,002 adults nationwide, aged 18 and older, between Feb. 17-19, 2003. The survey has a margin of error of ±3 percentage points.

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:

Media Bias

Editor's note:
'Let Freedom Ring' - Sean Hannity reveals how to triumph over the left

Printer Friendly Version

Reprint Information


Click Here

Click Here

Click Here

Click Here

Click Here

Inside Cover Stories
Americans tell Gallup: Media Still Way Too Liberal

Cuba Censors Martin Luther King Jr. ... and Marx

N. Korean Nukes: Aimed at the Sky?

California Gov. Condi Rice?

Canuck Lawmaker Apologizes to American 'Bastards'

Some French Oppose Chirac's Effort 'to Save a Tyrant'

Nasty Educrats Taunt Children of National Guard

Imus: Rather's Saddam Sit-down Was 'Treasonous'

Bush vs. Saddam Debate Match-up

Why Saddam Let Dan Rather Be His Mouthpiece

America-Hating France Rewrites History of WWII

More Inside Cover Stories

Money News E-Books Search NewsMax PriorityGrams Archives Late Nite Jokes NewsMax Mall
Cartoons News Links Magazine Classifieds Contact Us Advertise

NewsMax.com Privacy Statement

All Rights Reserved © NewsMax.com

Re: A little more yet....

Ed Davis, DPM on 2/27/03 at 23:05 (111106)

THURSDAY
FEBRUARY 27
2003


ShopNetDaily
Page 1 News
Page 2 News
BizNetDaily
LocalNetDaily
Commentary
Classified Ads
Letters
People Search
SportsNetDaily
Health
Weather
TV Guide
Movies
Stocks


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOLLYWOOD VS. AMERICA
U.S. citizens attack
anti-war celebrities
Fed up with opinions of TV, movie stars, ordinary people go on massive offensive

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 27, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Joe Kovacs
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

Americans objecting to the anti-war rhetoric of Hollywood celebrities are no longer remaining silent, but are starting to fight back with their own grass-roots offensive.

They're on the attack flooding actors, talent agencies and anti-war groups with their own thoughts on the possibility of war with Iraq, and what they think of the public stances being taken by many entertainers.

Sheryl Crow: 'The best way to solve problems is to not have enemies' (photo: Hollywood.com)

'These [celebrities] are abusing their stature and they need to be informed that there is a lot of America who vehemently disagrees with them,' says Los Angeles radio talk-show host John Kobylt. 'They need to be put back in their place. They need to understand where they are in the great food chain of life.'

Kobylt and his partner Ken Chiampou of KFI-AM are promoting a 'Virtual March on Hollywood.' It's a counter-measure to the 'Virtual March on Washington' which took place yesterday with anti-war activists jamming phone and fax lines in the nation's capital to get their message across.

'Stop Celebrity Spokesholes'

On the John and Ken website, the hosts provide a series of links in their movement to 'stop celebrity spokesholes.' Phone and fax numbers, along with some e-mail addresses are listed for some of the leading activists opposing President Bush's policy on disarming Iraq.

'It's just the first time in their life they've been criticized,' says Kobylt, 'because they think anybody who supports a war against Iraq is some stupid, redneck half-wit who's got no teeth, no shoes, no brain. They don't consider that most of the people would rather have a peaceful world, that we're fighting this war or we're gonna fight this war because of the terrorist attack.'

A caller from San Pedro, Calif., phoned in to read a portion of an e-mail he wrote to actor Mike Farrell, suggesting celebrities opposing the president volunteer to be human shields in Baghdad:

Since our military has already said we cannot guarantee the safety of those who have already gone over as human shields, when the bombing starts this remedy could have a double benefit. First, you will be able to put your money where your mouths are. Secondly, it's more than likely that you and your traitor conspirators will be erased from the planet. I call this the [epitome] of the term 'win-win.' Your insignificant group does not have the backing of the American people. We are not quick to go to war, we are a people of peace who time and time again have tried to help the impoverished of this world with food, finances, and when necessary, blood (you're welcome, France). ... What a shame that you did not choose to support our country like the true stars of the past, people like Bob Hope, Bing Crosby, Dorothy Lamour, Errol Flynn, and others who used their talent to fight dictators, fascism, and tyranny.
For his part, Farrell has been on the front lines against the use of force to persuade Saddam Hussein to disarm.

'It is inappropriate for the administration to trump up a case in which we are ballyhooed into war,' said the former star of 'M*A*S*H.' But as pointed out by WorldNetDaily columnist Larry Elder, 'when Clinton took non-U.N.-approved military action in Kosovo, Farrell said, 'I think it's appropriate for the international community in situations like this to intervene. I am in favor of an intervention.''

The Virtual March on Hollywood is indicative of a sentiment that has not received much coverage in the national media, but is just now elbowing its way to center stage.

For instance, America Online yesterday featured the issue of celebrities' war stances on its welcome screen. The Internet service provider asked members three questions in connection with entertainers' impact on public policy. With over 400,000 votes logged by 6:30 p.m. Eastern Time, results in the unscientific survey overwhelmingly showed that few believe high-profile activists influence their own stances:

Do celebrity activists affect your political opinions?

93% No

7% Yes

Total votes: 437,186
Should President Bush pay more attention to anti-war protesters?

71% No

29% Yes

Total votes: 437,724
Do you think peace demonstrations embolden Saddam?

71% Yes

29% No

Total votes: 432,144
AOL also showcased many of the personal comments submitted by its subscribers, shown here in the precise order displayed by AOL:

'They are actors! Why do people bow down and swear allegiance to what they say?' (Danrad54)
'Are actors qualified to do geopolitical commentary? No. It is sort of like saying Charlton Heston is qualified to be Moses.' (Zopinion)

'Celebrities have a right to state their opinion and we have an obligation to ignore or mock them.' (Andy 72259)

'Stop the insanity and force these people to live in the rest of the world like the rest of us.' (MissOktavia)

'If Hannity and Rush and O'Reilly can froth at the mouth for the war machine – and none of them are more or less qualified to do so than any actor – I don't see why the celebrities have to be silenced.' (PoetAmelie)

'Are celebrities entitled to their opinion? As private citizens, yes. As self-proclaimed experts because they starred in a movie about war, no!' (Pcny1953)

Hollywood Halfwits

Meanwhile, a California investor fed up with hearing 'anti-American' celebrity rhetoric has created a website to document the statements made by well-known entertainers.

HollywoodHalfwits.com made its debut three days ago, and without spending a cent on advertising was already receiving up to 2,000 hits per hour last night.

The site's creator, Mark Fleming, believes many celebrities speaking against President Bush right now are simply ignorant and uninformed.

'While they think they're promoting peace, they're actually pushing us to war,' he told WorldNetDaily. 'Saddam Hussein gets more and more emboldened [by them]. If we were all together on this, he'd be out of there by now.'

Among the celebs featured on Hollywood Halfwits is singer Sheryl Crow, who made headlines earlier this week by claiming CBS executives sought to silence any anti-war rhetoric during the Grammy Awards broadcast.

The Crow statement featured by Fleming is the singer's current philosophy regarding military conflict:

'I think war is based in greed and there are huge karmic retributions that will follow. I think war is never the answer to solving any problems. The best way to solve problems is to not have enemies.'

Ironically, during the Balkan conflict of the mid-1990s, Crow was not involved in any anti-war protests. In fact, the singer was ecstatic about entertaining American troops in Bosnia.

'Once over there I felt extremely patriotic,' Crow told USA Today. 'Here are these people, from 18-year-olds to military veterans, enduring real duress for the cause of peace.'

'I don't ever want to play for a regular audience again, only military folks who are starving for music,' she added.

Crow's apparent flip-flop didn't go unnoticed by radio talk-show giant Rush Limbaugh.

'Do you think if the Bush administration asked her to go entertain the troops in Iraq, she would go?' asked Limbaugh. 'I wouldn't count on it. All these people are just a bunch of thoroughbred hypocrites.'

Also featured on Fleming's site is the famous pro-peace statement made by actor Richard Gere during the 'Concert for New York' to raise money for the victims of the Sept. 11 terror attack. Gere was loudly booed while making these remarks:

Richard Gere (photo: Hollywood.com)

'In a situation like this, of course you identify with everyone who's suffering. [But we must also think about] the terrorists who are creating such horrible future lives for themselves because of the negativity of this karma. It's all of our jobs too keep our minds as expansive as possible. If you can see [the terrorists] as a relative who's dangerously sick and we have to give them medicine, and the medicine is love and compassion. There's nothing better.'

Back in Los Angeles, KFI's John Kobylt had this reaction to Gere's stance.

'Who the hell wants to go see him in a movie? I mean who can stomach that guy once you hear that stuff?' he asked.

The public-relations offensive could gain more steam this weekend with the debut of a television commercial featuring 'Law & Order' star Fred Thompson.

'Thank goodness we have a president with the courage to protect our country,' the former Tennesee senator says in the ad, according to the Drudge Report. 'What should we do with the inevitable prospect of nuclear weapons in the hands of a murderous and aggressive enemy? Can we afford to appease Saddam?'

The effort comes just days after 'West Wing' actor Martin Sheen created a commercial in which he implores fans and viewers: 'Don't invade Iraq. Inspections work; war won't.'

NBC executives were reportedly unapprised of Thomspon's spot challenging Sheen.

'We obviously have not taken a stand on President Bush's policies,' a senior network official told Drudge. 'Mr. Sheen and Mr. Thompson are both acting in their capacity as private citizens, I would trust.'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you'd like to sound off on this issue, please take part in the WorldNetDaily poll.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Related stories:

Ben & Jerry's co-founder begged for enemy of U.S.

Richard Gere slams Bush on Iraq policy

Clooney: 'America's policies frustrate me'

Sean Penn breaks his silence ... sort of

Baghdad using Penn as propaganda tool?

Sean Penn visits Baghdad for 'insight'

Belafonte, Glover trash U.S. in Cuba

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Today's related column:

Hollywood 'experts' speak out

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joe Kovacs is executive news editor for WorldNetDaily.com.

E-mail to a Friend Printer-friendly version

NEWS:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

N.C. al-Qaida cell linked to al-Arian?

Saudis still financing al-Qaida

Muslim website warns of imminent attack

U.S. citizens attack anti-war celebrities

Arafat sends holiday greetings to Saddam

Most Americans believe in ghosts

Nice going, Dan Rather!

Castro on trial for U.S. terrorism

PETA responds to WND story

Military: Teachers harassing soldiers' kids

Saudi in Idaho charged for terror ties

Radio show hosts Cashill on Flight 800

COMMENTARY:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stop the invasion!
By Joseph Farah

Will Republicans go spineless on Estrada?
By Jane Chastain

Osama vs. the antichrist
By Hal Lindsey

They think anybody who supports a war against Iraq is some stupid, redneck half-wit who's got no teeth, no shoes, no brain.

--Los Angeles radio talk-show host John Kobylt

While they think they're promoting peace, they're actually pushing us to war. Saddam Hussein gets more and more emboldened [by them].

--Mark Fleming, creator of HollywoodHalfwits.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E-MAIL JOE KOVACS (PIPE) GO TO JOE KOVACS'S ARCHIVE

GO TO PAGE 1 (PIPE) GO TO PAGE 2 (PIPE) GO TO COMMENTARY

SEARCH WND (PIPE) CONTACT WND

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com, Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact WND
Co-Located at Fiber Internet Center

Re: To Ed

BGCPed on 2/27/03 at 23:47 (111114)

Well if thats how you feel I feel sorry for you. The posts clearly marked so if I may be so bold as to offer this suggestion. If you see any of the meanies name or a thread you dont like.........DONT READ IT

I know that is a mean thing to say. I think this is like a person looking into their neighbors mailbox or window and complaining about wht is in there.

Is it really that hard to ignore the names and subjects you know you dont agree with? If a few people get you so riled then why not just ignore their names? I guess I am missing something here. Have you wondered why none of the 'conservative' posters have ever claimed they would leave or try to control the words of others?

Re: What is wrong with this picture...?Re. media bias

Leon S on 2/28/03 at 06:07 (111125)

Ed,
I always get a laugh when people talk about a 'media bias'. I don't deny that there are numbers which show that more people in the media are personally more 'liberal' than 'conservative' but my main objection to the argument is the presumed effect they have on the public. This argument has been presented for many years and I always like to look at the numbers as the proponents of this position like to do. Dating back to when Nixon was president, he and Ford had 8 yrs followed by 4 years of Carter followed by another 8 yrs of Reagan followed by 4 yrs of Bush I, followed by 8 years of Clinton, followed by 4 and barring any major catastrophe another 4 by Bush II. Did I leave anyone out? Add the numbers up and see who controls both houses of congress. Like it or not, FoxNews has a larger audience than the presumed liberal CNN or MSNBC. Talk radio is inundated with conservative hosts. Sure NPR might be more 'liberal' but how many people listen to them compared to the commercial stations? Rupert Murdoch owns more media in this country than anyone else. I ask the question, what is the effect of the political positions of some of the news hosts and who cares? The numbers show that the people are smart enough to think for themselves and are not swayed by the alleged political bias of a few commentators or news readers. The conservatives are always complaining about a liberal news bias and I don't see its effect. Will you not be satisfied until the president and entire congress is made up of conservatives? Is it your opinion that anytime a democrat gets elected anywhere it's because of a media bias?

Re: Ed

Kathy G on 2/28/03 at 09:55 (111150)

Ed,

I could rise to the bait but I have better things to do. I consider myself fortunate to have been the first you have 'deliberately' attacked.

You just don't get it. And I don't mean you don't get it about political/moral/war issues. You just don't understand human nature or common courtesy. I feel sorry for you.

Carry on.

Re: Ed

Ed Davis, DPM on 2/28/03 at 10:52 (111161)

Kathy:

You seem glad to be the first one who could bait me into a personal attack.
But why? Really why? Read some of my debate with Leon. Leon and I disagree on much, but, to this point, we have just discussed issues without ever calling one a name or involving persoanlities. That is the type of discussion that I am accustomed to and believe to be civil. It is the type of discussion that I have been promoting. Look at the discussion with Marie above -- both sides used exaggeration and hyperbole but there was no name calling. Why cannot you and the other 3 agree to a similar set of ground rules?
Ed

Re: Ed

BGCPed on 2/28/03 at 11:01 (111162)

Ed, There you go again...........trying to let facts, logic and critical thinking get in the way of a good argument

Re: What is wrong with this picture...?Re. media bias

Ed Davis, DPM on 2/28/03 at 11:09 (111163)

Leon:

Of course, I would prefer to see more conservatives in Congress in government and am sure you would like to see the opposite. I beleive neither of us is looking for hegemony.

Fox News positions itself as a 'moderate' source stating 'we report, you decide.' Their editorial staff does appear to be conservative though. Remember that the popularity of Fox News is only a fairly recent phenomenon and I feel that that is a reflection of peoples frustration with some of the other media outlets. CNN, for most of the years you mention, had higher ratings than Fox. CNN also was more widely distributed -- it was very available -- I was on the island of Turkoise on vacation in the Carribean when the first Gulf War started, watching the air war on CNN. Fox News has only been available in my area for about 3 years. Listening to CNN talk about the Jenin Massacre that never really happened was the last straw for me with that network.

Why don't more people listen to NPR ( I do)? Perhaps it is really because they are not balanced enough for most. I listen to it to hear a different perspective on things but have a hard time believing some of the stuff I hear. NPR has some intense biases -- check out the C.A.M.E.R.A. website, which is a 'watchdog' group for anti-Israel bias and see their long list of innaccuracies about the Middle East situation that NPR seems to keep repeating. I really don't mind watching or listening to media which represents specific points of view and would assume that many would share that. I do appreciate when such outlets are honest about their philosophic bent and do not try to feign objectivity whn there is none.
Outlets such as Newsmax.com and Worldnet.com are conservative and make no pretense about that; New Republic is liberal and makes no pretense about that.
Ed

Re: For Leon, the link to CAMERA

Ed Davis, DPM on 2/28/03 at 11:24 (111165)

Leon:
The website is hard to find via a search engine because of the name spelling brings up camera shops.

Here it is: http://www.camera.org

Ed

Re: Ed

Ed Davis, DPM on 2/28/03 at 11:47 (111170)

BG:
A good argument can be fun. I have liberal friends and we go at it all the time. I go at it with other conservatives -- I am what some call a neocon who have views in opposition to many paleocons (such as Pat Buchanan). At times, things get pretty heated up and we don't talk to each other for a day or so. Four individuals here insist on personalizing all the issues and turning everything into personal attacks. My assumption is that debate is something they are unaccustomed to but have gotten into it because of the current world situation. I hope that they will at least look at the discourse that has occurred between you, myself, Leon and Marie and can see how that differs from their 'interpretation' of the nature of debate.
Ed

Re: Ed

Larson on 2/28/03 at 17:08 (111201)

Ed:
No response from Kathy. Not surprised. You better stop using logic and common sense.
Larson

Re: What is wrong with this picture...?Re. media bias

Leon S. on 2/28/03 at 18:22 (111210)

Ed,
That is exactly my point. With all the perceived and documented liberal bias of various on air personalities and media outlets, it does not manifest itself in the election returns. Using the years I noted in my previous message, starting with Nixon's terms and assuming that Bush II will win again (barring a national catastrophe or some sudden Democratic superstar) there will have been 28 yrs of republican presidents and only 12 yrs of democratic presidents. Add to that a republican control of both houses of congress and I believe a majority of state governorships, where is all that proposed media bias going? Even in New York, which is typically a democratic stronghold, there is a republican governor and another republican mayor. That's why I question the complaint about a biased media being made by conservatives. What more do they want?

Re: What is wrong with this picture...?Re. media bias

john h on 2/28/03 at 20:23 (111216)

Leon: I believe there have been many independant studies indicating a bias with the major networks NBC,CBS,and ABC towards the left and generally towards the Democratic point of view. My personal observtion is that bias does exist. Of course FOX is Conservative and proudly proclaims so while the major anchors on the networks would deny the bias. That is not to say the networks do not go after Democrats on issues on occasion but I think it would be a real stretch not to recognize the bias to the left. We have newspapers representing both views which are very clear in their bias. It would be nice but difficult to be a real reporter as an anchor and not a an editorilist. this would be difficult but some seemed to have accomplished that feat. Walter Cronkite seems to have accomplished this and was liked both Democrats and Republicans. I think a good example of current reporting is Jim Lehrer on PBS with the 6pm NewsHour. He is often used as a moderator in Presidental and other debates. I can not detect any bias towards any point of view with this guy. As Sgt Friday used to say 'just the facts sir' When I turn on the evening news it seems they just go for the sensational and have been very good at polorizing the public.

Re: What is wrong with this picture...?Re. media bias

Ed Davis, DPM on 2/28/03 at 20:49 (111219)

Leon:

People are sufficiently independent minded that the bias of the media may have limited impact. I don't feel that justifies a bias in reporting.

Looking at the aggregate of issues one can point out that the influence of the media is not considerable and as such, media bias may not be a concern.
Unfortunately, a toll can be taken on individual issues as the public should not have to dig extra hard to uncover the truth. I used the example of the widely reported massacre in Jenin that never happened as an item of considerable concern.
Ed

Re: What is wrong with this picture...?Re. media bias

Ed Davis, DPM on 2/28/03 at 20:53 (111221)

John:

A key issue here is the admission of a bias. There are publications that clearly identify themselves as conservative or liberal and that is okay because we know where they are coming from. The problem I have is when there is a claim of objectivity when that objectivity does not really exist.
Ed

Re: What is wrong with this picture...?Re. media bias

BGCPed on 2/28/03 at 22:02 (111232)

Anyone remember the election bush-v-gore? There was on or two guys that did more than interject their opinions as the vote twisted back and forth. Anybody remember who and what?

Re: What is wrong with this picture...?Re. media bias

Leon S. on 3/01/03 at 10:12 (111264)

You know what guys? I think you're looking for perfection where it will never be. The current media is made up of human beings (and for the most part, relatively young human beings) who grew up in the television/entertainment era, who did not have the roots of the Murrows, Cronkites et al (I know I'm using tv journalists as the example but not to the exclusion of the old, classical newspapermen and women and I also believe that most of this discussion is concerning the broadcast media of which I have some experience since I am part of it). I really don't think any of them know any better. We can all watch the local news of any station and watch and hear the reporters add closing lines to a story which reflect their opinions. Broadcast news is unfortunately now part of the entertainment industry. Ratings is the most important factor and whether we like it or not, certain news decisions are based on the entertainment factor. As much as Foxnews likes to say 'we report, you decide' that's crap. It's a snappy slogan designed to make the viewer think they are getting unvarnished, pure news but like everyone else, they have their own agenda. The glitzy video, the sound effects, the great looking women with tight leather skirts hiked up to their thighs sitting on chairs that are not hidden behind desks are all designed to get the ratings. As an aside, the first time I noticed this latter phenomenon was on the Saturday morning the terrorists in Israel killed dozens of Jewish worshipers leaving temple from their Sabbath services. I was visiting a relative who had FoxNews on and there was this disturbing image of this georgeous 'news reader' with her tight leather skirt hiked up over her thighs with her legs crossed, reading this story.How incongruous was that?...As this country is preparing for war, the networks are all preparing their smart, animated graphics and ominous music to present it as a made for TV movie. Where I work and I'm sure the other networks are doing it also, we are even having rehearsals for the war coverage. Getting back to my original point, I really think that you are being naive in expecting to get 'pure, unbiased news' as you would like it. Of course, as you say, certain individuals do a better job than others but they are the exceptions. It's very righteous to be offended because of the perception that the bulk of the news media appears to be more left than you would want. I wonder, if the situation was different and there was suddenly a magic tilt to the right in the media coverage of all events, if you would be as upset as you are now.

Re: What is wrong with this picture...?Re. media bias

john h on 3/01/03 at 13:19 (111289)

Leon: I agree with most of what ou post. TV news is a business and personal bias will spill over. I also think they do not give enough coverage to a single subject and try to cover everything with 3-4 minutes to one subject. I would prefer a little more in depth coverage and fewer subjects. I still think the old Mcneil Lehrer or the current Lehrer 6pm Newshour is as close to pure news coverage as you can get. You tell me if you can detect any bias one way or the other. I sure cannot. I would not venture a guess as to whether he is a Democrat,Republican, Liberal or Conservative? You have to really be good to come across like this.

Re: What is wrong with this picture...?Re. media bias

Sharon W on 3/01/03 at 13:59 (111303)

Leon,

I agree with you that to demand impartial news coverage is to demand perfection in news reporting -- and nobody is perfect.

I have never worked in the news industry but I did get involved in journalism in high school and early college. (In fact, I was assistant editor of our high school paper.) We were taught that reporting the news should be factual and unbiased. If we submitted a story that was clearly biased it would be rejected. Opinions were only expressed in editorials, and editorials were clearly labelled as such. I think everyone understood that a certain amount of bias was inevitable in regular news stories, because it is only natural to notice things that support one's own point of view, but we tried to be as objective as possible.

TRYING to be as objective as he/she possibly can was an important goal for reporters in the past. I no longer believe that is the case. TV networks no longer look at news as a 'public service' that is expected to lose money because it isn't as exciting as fictional programming. As you pointed out, ratings are the most important thing these days, and broadcast news has definitely become part of the entertainment industry. If some aspect of a story is scandallous or violent or extremely dramatic (especially if it's caught on video tape), that will be highlighted and promoted with previews, etc. while more important aspects of the same story may receive scant or no attention because they don't boost ratings.

To me, it seems very sad that network news reporting has moved in this direction, but it is a fact of life.

Sharon

Re: What is wrong with this picture...?Re. media bias

Leon S. on 3/01/03 at 17:05 (111319)

John, I agree with you that Lehrer's show comes closest to what you are looking for. The reason that is so is that it is on PBS and has no commercial breaks. The network news shows are 1/2 hr long with 3 commercial breaks leaving about 22 minutes of time for news. Also, those network news shows are usually preceded in most cities by a local 1 or 2 hours of news supported by satellite news services bringing them the same stories that the network news show has. Bearing in mind that there are 3 24 hr cable news stations who can be on the air instantly with a breaking story, in spite of what the ivory tower network news people want to think, the network program is almost irrelevant. Add to that the stunt that Dan Rather pulled and the less than honest reporting of Peter Jennings, their demise might be sooner than later.

Re: Ed

marie on 3/02/03 at 18:55 (111486)

Larson,

That's not nice.

marie

Re: Kathy, Nancy, Paula, Nancy N. and Julie.

marie on 3/02/03 at 19:15 (111489)

Please don't leave me here with these guys. No offense men. I can't explain some of the behavior that has gone on, but it will never get better if you leave. Julie if it wasn't for you I wouldn't be doing all these Yoga exercises, Paula you gave me the courage to find my strength when I needed it, Nancy you planted flowers in the window waiting for spring, Nancy N I think you do a pretty good job of letting them have it, Kathy you inspire me. I need your freindship. I certainly can't discuss menopause with these guys....or maybe I should. In fact that may be just the thing to get them off the board. I'd like to hear them debate that one.

Please ladies the guys have been a little more civil lately. If they start getting nasty with you just use a little wacky talk. It throws those intelectual types every time. As the song goes 'Drag me into shallow water before I get to deep.'

Re: Bad, Naughty, Larson

marie on 3/02/03 at 19:20 (111490)

Larson,
This not nice. Quit acting like such a big meany head. Aside from that I like cheese.