British Press on Obama and Obamacare...

I'm envious of a press that writes this pungently (Nile Gardiner in the London Telegraph):

Indeed, in the last few days, Barack Obama and Joe Biden have strutted across the country with a vain swagger that would make a peacock blush, from the vice president’s classless, foul-mouthed victory boast at the White House, to the president’s contemptuous mocking of his political opponents at a rally in Iowa. Both leaders have been beaming like the Cheshire Cat from Alice in Wonderland, living in their own Tim Burton-like fantasy. And what have they actually achieved? The passage of a massively controversial, divisive and hugely expensive health care reform bill via a Democrat-dominated Congress in the face of overwhelming public opposition, and without a shred of bi-partisan support.

I'd probably enjoy their liberal version of this just as much.  Their press is like a nice Thai food dinner – spicy and tasty – whereas the American press is more like a bowl of cheap oatmeal that's had all the flavor cooked out of it...

Double Standard...

If you're not familiar with the issue, this story is going to seem really odd: Ms. magazine refuses to run the ad at right. You'd think the magazine would find an ad bragging about the success of women in a culture or country a very comfortable addition to its pages – which are, after all, mostly devoted to advocacy of women's issues.

You would be wrong, though. You see, these aren't the right kind of women. These women are (gasp!) Israeli – and the liberal narrative to which Ms. magazine tightly adheres says that Israel (and Israelis) are evil! Never mind the rather obvious fact that Israeli society is one of the least gender-biased in the world, living side-by-side with the Muslim Palestinians, whose society is one of the most gender-biased. The standard liberal narrative says that those Palestinians are to be admired, and the Israelis to be loathed … and Ms. magazine sticks to the playbook.

The American Jewish Congress (who tried to place this ad) has issued a press release telling the whole sad story. Do go read the whole thing, as it's an interesting piece of commentary. Here's the lead:

NEW YORK, Jan. 10 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Ms. Magazine has long been in the forefront of the fight for equal rights and equal opportunities for women. Apparently that is not the case if the women happen to be Israeli.

The magazine has turned down an AJCongress advertisement that did nothing more controversial than call attention to the fact that women currently occupy three of the most significant positions of power in Israeli public life. The proposed ad included a text that merely said, "This is Israel," under photographs of President of the Supreme Court Dorit Beinish, Vice Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs Tzipi Livni and Knesset Speaker Dalia Itzik.

"What other conclusion can we reach," asked Richard Gordon, President of AJCongress, "except that the publishers − and if the publishers are right, a significant number of Ms. Magazine readers − are so hostile to Israel that they do not even want to see an ad that says something positive about Israel?"

When Director of AJCongress' Commission for Women's Empowerment Harriet Kurlander tried to place the ad, she was told that publishing the ad "will set off a firestorm" and that "there are very strong opinions" on the subject − the subject presumably being whether or not one can say anything positive about Israel. Ms. Magazine publisher Eleanor Smeal failed to respond to a signed-for certified letter with a copy of the ad as well as numerous calls by Mr. Gordon over a period of weeks.

A Ms. Magazine representative, Susie Gilligan, whom the Ms. Magazine masthead lists under the publisher's office, told Ms. Kurlander that the magazine "would love to have an ad from you on women's empowerment, or reproductive freedom, but not on this." Ms. Gilligan failed to elaborate what "this" is.

"The only conclusion that one can reach from this behavior is that Ms. Magazine feels that an ad highlighting the accomplishments of three incredibly talented and dedicated women would offend their readership. Since there is nothing about the ad itself that is offensive, it is obviously the nationality of the women pictured that the management of Ms. fears their readership would find objectionable. For a publication that holds itself out to be in the forefront of the Women's Movement, this is nothing short of disgusting and despicable," stated Mr. Gordon.

The feminist movement and its mouthpieces are capable of some amazing mental juggling. This is one example; others include their fawning over Bill Clinton and their deafening silence on the miserable plight of women in fundamentalist Muslim societies. The latter reached its nadir when fashion magazines featured the burka in laudatory articles. This seemingly inexplicable hypocrisy is actually a marvelously clear window into the true motives of many of the most influential leaders of the feminist movement – what drives them isn't feminism at all (notwithstanding their words), but rather liberalism – in a particularly arrogant and obnoxious form.

The publishers and editors of Ms. magazine ought to be ashamed of themselves. I imagine that instead they're feeling rather smug and proud. Despicable.

A Free Lunch...

Of sorts, anyway. The Wall Street Journal has opened up a large part of its web site to everybody, for free. This is a direct consquence of Rupert Murdoch's recent acquisition of Dow Jones (the owner of the Wall Street Journal) and his personal vision of the future of the news business. The lead of their announcement:

Everyone knows that Joseph Schumpeter's "creative destruction" is roiling the newspaper world, and today we'd like to announce something on the creative side. We're rolling out a new destination for the Journal editorial page offering free access to all of our editorials and op-eds, video interviews and commentary. It's as close as we'll get to conceding there is such a thing as a free lunch.

Since 2000, we've operated in a dual world on the Web. The majority of our daily editorial offerings have remained behind a paid subscription wall at wsj.com/opinion, while our free site, OpinionJournal.com, offered select stories plus a few Web-only features. As of today, those two sites will merge and become a single free site for all Journal opinion, both in the U.S. and overseas editions, book reviews and leisure and arts.

You can access their editorial page at this link. In my opinion, it's one of the best sources of English-language informed commentary and political perspective in the world.

Louderback on Linux?

Jim Louderback is a very well-known figure in the world of technology journalism. He's just resigned as editor-in-chief of the venerable PC Magazine to become CEO of Revision3 (a “new media” company focused on Internet video). In the same column where he announced his departure, he had this to say:

Maybe it was something in the water? I've been a big proponent of the new OS over the past few months, even going so far as loading it onto most of my computers and spending hours tweaking and optimizing it. So why, nine months after launch, am I so frustrated? The litany of what doesn't work and what still frustrates me stretches on endlessly.

…

I could go on and on about the lack of drivers, the bizarre wake-up rituals, the strange and nonreproducible system quirks, and more. But I won't bore you with the details. The upshot is that even after nine months, Vista just ain't cutting it. I definitely gave Microsoft too much of a free pass on this operating system: I expected it to get the kinks worked out more quickly. Boy, was I fooled! If Microsoft can't get Vista working, I might just do the unthinkable: I might move to Linux.

If you're not familiar with Jim Louderback, this is along the same lines as a priest or minister announcing one day that everything he's been telling you is wrong, and there really is no God. At least not one named Bill Gates.

I've already seen commentary elsewhere lauding this column as a significant defection of one of the loyal Microsoft fans. Having dealt with PC Magazine many years ago (when I was working for Stac, and we were getting Stacker tested by the magazine's test labs), I have an entirely different take on this. I suspect Louderback hasn't changed his real position at all – he's felt like this about Vista (and Microsoft) right from the beginning. What has changed is this: Jim Louderback is moving to a job where he no longer needs Microsoft as a customer, so he's now free to speak his mind. PC Magazine gets lots of advertising dollars from Microsoft, and believe me: no matter how much the magazine proclaims their independence, they are not independent of their biggest advertisers. Of course they're not, as those advertisers are what feeds everybody who works at the magazine…

Completely Unreasonable

Via Simon M., on the completely unreasonable expectations bloggers have of the lamestream media...

Cox & Forkum are a constant source of excellent political commentary in cartoon form – check 'em out!

Yon the Humiliator!

A few days ago I posted about the recent Al Qaeda atrocities near Baquba so eloquently reported by Michael Yon. In that same post, I lamented the lamestream media's determined avoidance of reporting the ugly truths about our enemy. Many other bloggers had similar thoughts, including Glenn Reynolds (the InstaPundit). His post caused someone in the media to respond to Glenn with the following email:

Yon's story doesn't get attention because it is humiliating.

It is humiliating because it is obvious that we media – and our allies in the state department, the legal trade, the NGOs, the Democratic Party, the UN, etc., - can’t do squat about such determined use of force.

Our words, images, arguments and skills can’t stop the killing. Only the rough soldiers and their guns can solve the problem, and we won’t admit that fact because the admission would weaken our influence and our claim to social status.

So we pretend Yon’s massacre – and the North Korean killing fields, the Arab treatment of women, the Arab hatred of Israel, etc. - doesn’t exist, and instead focus our emotions and attention on the somewhat-bad domestic things that we can ‘fix’ with our DC-based allies. Things such as Abu Ghraib, wiretapping, etc. When we ‘fix’ them, then we get status, applause, power, new jobs, ego, etc.

Please don’t be surprised. We media are an interest group not much different from the automakers, the unions, and the farmers.

Glenn says that the journalist's name is one we'd recognize. Presumably this journalist requested anonymity – and given his (or her) heretical observations, one can understand why.

Remember this the next time you hear some beguiling journalist make claims about their profession's objectivity and lack of agenda...

MEMRI

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) is an indispensable source of information for Americans about the Middle East. They do something our lamestream media rarely does: they take the news reported by Middle Eastern mainstream media, translate it (if required) into English, and then post it raw and unedited. I don't know any other source that routinely provides a peek into the way Middle Easterners get their news. Their main site updates the stories they've processed each day, and their video site has the original Middle Eastern videos, with English transcripts of them. They even have a blog!

What provoked me to post about MEMRI was a transcript I read this morning. It is from the Saudi Iqra TV (a Saudi Arabian media outlet), and shows a man-in-the-street interview with various answers to a single question:

Interviewer: Would you, as a human being, be willing to shake hands with a Jew?

Interviewee 1: Of course I wouldn't be willing to shake hands with a Jew, for religious reasons and because of what is happening now in Palestine, and for many reasons that don't allow me to shake a Jew's hand.

Interviewee 2: No. Because the Jews are eternal enemies. The murderous Jews violate all agreements. I can't shake hands with someone who I know is full of hatred towards me.

Interviewee 3: No, the Jew is an enemy. How can I shake my enemy's hand?

Interviewer: Would you refuse to shake hands with a Jew?

Interviewee 4: Of course, so I wouldn't have to consider amputating my hand afterwards.

Interviewer: If a child asks you who "who are the Jews," what would you answer?

Interviewee 5: The enemies of Allah and His Prophet.

Interviewee 6: The Jew is the occupier of our lands.

Interviewee 1: The murderers of prophets. Our eternal enemies, of course.

Interviewee 2: The murderers of prophets, that's it.

Interviewer: If a child asks you who "who are the Jews," what would you answer?

Interviewee 8: Allah's wrath is upon them, as the Koran says. Allah's wrath is upon them and they all stray from the path of righteousness. They are the filthiest people on the face of this earth because they care only about themselves: Not the Christians, not the Muslims, nor any other religion.

The solution is clear, not only to me but to everyone. If only [the Muslims] declared Jihad, we would see who stays home. We have a few countries… there is one country with a population of over 60-70 million people. If we let them only march, with no weapons even, they would completely trample the Jews, they would turn them into rotten carcasses under their feet. There is another country that donated money, saying, "I am behind you, I'll support you with weapons, just wage [Jihad]."

But the cowardice inside us, deep within our hearts was instilled by the Arab leaders, may Allah forgive them. They breast-fed us with it from the day we were born to this very day it has grown with us.

In Saudi Arabia, as in many other despotic Middle Eastern regimes, decades of non-stop propaganda has produced a populace that apparently really believes this sort of rubbish. The regimes support the propaganda because it provides a target for their population's discontent -- a target other than themselves, that is.

I can't imagine how this sort of thing can be reversed other than by stopping the propaganda, letting real information flow freely, and letting a few decades go by. But so long as those regimes remain in power, the first two prerequisites just ain't gonna happen.

This is one of the main reasons for my support of the war in Iraq -- a democracy in the Middle East was (and remains) the best hope I can think of for addressing what I can only call the brainwashing of the Arab "street".

Now I think I"ll go take a shower; I feel unclean after reading that transcript...

Fairness

In recent weeks the Democrats have been repeatedly floating the notion of reinstating the badly-misnamed "Fairness Doctrine". Older readers will remember that before the Reagan administration (during which the "Fairness Doctrine" was repealed) there was very little political talk radio -- and the little that existed was so boring that virtually nobody listened to it. Then after the "Fairness Doctrine" was repealed, talk radio exploded to become, today, the biggest success story in radio.

What happened?

It's very simple, really: the "Fairness Doctrine" required radio stations to give equal air time to all sides of a political issue. If a radio station had a commercial success with, say, a Communist talk show host -- then they'd have to have an equally long conservative show, liberal show, centrist show, Green show, and who knows what other kind of show. This was, of course, completely impractical -- so the radio stations did the only thing they could: they nixed all the political shows. When the "Fairness Doctrine" was repealed, the radio stations immediately started airing political talk shows, and they were very popular. In the 20+ years since the repeal, these talk shows have been thoroughly market tested -- the networks and stations know exactly what kind of talk shows people want to listen to. There's no mystery about this; all you have to do is look at your local stations' schedules and it's obvious: conservative and (to a lesser extent) libertarian talk shows dominate the air.

Today a more formal study about this phenomenon was published:

In a report titled "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio," the Center for American Progress concluded that 91 percent of weekday talk radio is conservative, compared with liberal content at 9 percent. The group, which said it analyzed 257 news and talk stations owned by the five biggest radio broadcasters, calls for stricter media-ownership limits and public-interest requirements.

"There is little free speech or free choice in a market system that pushes out one-sided information 90 percent of the time on the radio," said John Halpin, a senior fellow at the center. "Radio stations are licensed to operate in the public interest. Promoting one point of view over all others does not meet any reasonable public-interest standard."

Halpin's comments toe the Democratic story line: it's unfair that conservative and libertarian shows dominate. Never mind that those are the shows that people want (as they demonstrate by listening to them), it's unfair! And that translates -- in their small, controlling, anti-freedom brains -- directly into action. They must be stopped! Their message must be forbidden! Americans must listen to us!

Unspoken is the subtext: so we can control them!

The controlling nature of modern American liberals (as amply demonstrated by their ambition to reinstate the "Fairness Doctrine") is most disturbing to me. From my perspective, it's invidious and downright un-American. It's what's behind the nanny-state ambitions in California: banning spanking, mandating CFLs, motorcycle helmet laws, seat belt laws, and on and on. There seems to be an almost unstoppable momentum behind this, much like (if slightly later than) what happened in Europe. We need some good ideas about how to stop this...

Day-by-Day

I always keep Chris Muir's excellent Day-by-Day cartoon posted on the sidebar. Today's is a great zinger on the lamestream media's awful coverage of the war in Iraq -- and Chris would know, as he was himself embedded a short time ago.

Just click on the small image at right, and it will zoom to readable size...