1
   

Canadians want Fox News Now!

 
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 04:10 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Lola wrote:
And McG, tell us why you chose your avie. What attracted your attention to it? It's just really a nice photo with pretty hands and you're a computer threadster and it symbolizes your commitment to the liberation of women and you love red nail polish and you just thought it cute or what?


I chose it because I liked it. Isn't that why everyone chooses the avatar they use?


If you're a literal minded, concrete thinker........yes. But it's a little like answering a question with "because." "Because is not an answer to anything, it's a preposition. But now that I think about it, it may be the best answer you can give. Silly McG. Laughing
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 04:13 pm
I'll comment on Coombs et al here when I see some direct quotes in context rather than paraphrases by somebody obviously with an agenda out to smear somebody they don't like.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 04:18 pm
blatham wrote:
Tico

Your posts on this subject and your notions of what constitutes journalism, and objectivity, and the role of a free press, and the proper operations of a government regarding a free press, go a long ways towards making sense of what you read and paste here in a2k.

Are there any standards you, or fox, might maintain above partisan alignment? We have now, courtesy of the administration you consistently laud to a point near worship, the institutionalization of torture, unprecedented budget deficits, deceit and secrecy as prime operational policies (why didn't Rice and Gonzales simply take the fifth?), the utter and total refusal to ever hold themselves accountable for anything gone awry, the boosterism of war and the whoring of the military for marketing purposes, and the covert payment to 'media figures' to forward state-sanctioned viewpoints (propaganda).

Congratulations on your unyielding support for such noble values.


I take it the conservative article from salon.com is not forthcoming?

Lola wrote:
And McG, tell us why you chose your avie.


Lola, why did you choose your avatar?
0 Replies
 
El-Diablo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 04:21 pm
Quote:
If you're a literal minded, concrete thinker........yes. But it's a little like answering a question with "because." "Because is not an answer to anything, it's a preposition. But now that I think about it, it may be the best answer you can give. Silly McG.


Congratulations on finding something in nothing. That might even get the dumbest post today.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 04:24 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
I'll comment on Coombs et al here when I see some direct quotes in context rather than paraphrases by somebody obviously with an agenda out to smear somebody they don't like.

But, that's the way dems operate, repubs only caught on to that a few years ago. I'm pretty much amased at how I so seldom read posts here on A2K from Repubs where they haven't actually gone to the source and only quote one-liners they read on some blurb. I may mend my ways if this trend keeps up.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 04:35 pm
Some broad-brushin' there, methinks, Dyslexia. Gotta say the trait is exhibited here, yeah, but I don't think its practice is exclusive to any one camp. But then, mebbe that was your point.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 04:39 pm
from wash times, no longer available there, but quoted here at the fun site Stormfront... http://www.stormfront.org/archive/t-10078Article_from_Wash_times.html
Quote:
Marian Kester Coombs

Read any serious newspaper, and the plot of virtually every story is the struggle of People vs. People ?- not classes, but races (or cultures, to be polite).
One people seeks its "fair share" of the land and water controlled by another people. One people complains its borders are being breached by another people. One people seeks to avenge an injury to its self-esteem inflicted once upon a time by another people.
One people grovels to be taken in and cared for by another people.
One people petitions the government to favor it at the expense of another people. One people demands the erasure of another people's cultural-religious symbols and their replacement with its own.
Ethnologists would do a better job reporting the news than journalists can.
Then add to this basic plot the end of the Cold War. The emigration/immigration patterns thawed out by the end of the East-West standoff are so striking that many have analyzed and characterized them, including Robert D. Kaplan, Francis Fukuyama, Samuel P. Huntington, Paul Kennedy, and most recently Patrick Buchanan in "The Death of the West."
Just as motion in the atmosphere is away from high-pressure areas and toward low, the demographic momentum of Asia, Central and South America, and to some extent Africa is causing a seemingly irresistible outflow of population toward the relatively less populous nations of Europe and North America. This latest round of the "rise and fall of peoples" proceeds as it always has ?- but with three major differences.
• First, the expansion of these Third World populations is not due, as was the pattern in the past, to the flowering of their own societies, but to the globalization of the generous genius of Western civilization.
• Second, today's desired destinations are full up, unlike the vast tracts of emptiness that drew population to places like Australia, Canada, the United States and Argentina beginning in the 17th century and continuing throughout the 20th. Although large areas of today's destinations are "depopulated" by Third World urban standards, they already teem as "colorfully" as the people who live there wish them to.
• Last, people now emigrate as much to be kept alive by rich societies as to find work. Salvadorans trying to get to El Norte, for instance, are better informed about U.S. government programs for health, education and welfare than are native-born Americans. They are drawn here by them, and it would be unnatural if they were not.
By contrast, European immigrants to the "empty" continents encountered no safety net and precious few "jobs" in the modern sense of an employer offering specific paid positions. Often there was no work unless you invested, invented, created and drummed it up yourself.
There was no infrastructure unless you built it yourself; no welfare, no food stamps, no universal free education, no unemployment or health insurance, no disability, no workers' comp, no Social Security. The dread "poorhouse" was the best you could hope for.
Now the global frontier is closed; the Wild West of the entire world is past. So what are those faced with futurelessness to do?
Population movements have historically functioned as a safety valve, easing the growing pains of nations and expelling "ungovernable" elements before they could coalesce to unbalance the status quo. Yet despite the open valve of emigration throughout the 18th and 19th centuries ?- more than 43 million people quit Europe between 1770 and 1914 ?- it was an age of revolutions: first the French, inspired by the brilliant rhetoric, ideals and success of the Americans in throwing off the dead hand of hereditary monarchy, then the Greeks, the Spanish, the Portuguese, the Belgians, the French again (and again), the Germans, the Hungarians, the Italians, the Poles, the Russians.
Today, however, population flight allows dysfunctional, kleptocratic regimes to remain in power decade after decade, as all who have the wit or will to oppose them get the hell out ?- Cuba, Haiti, Mexico, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Somalia, Algeria, the Philippines, Vietnam, China. After their enemies, these regimes then export their hard-core poor for the West to take care of.
For this is now apparently our function: We are the adults of the world, caring for masses of hapless childlike asylum-seekers, economic and political and social refugees, immigrants legal and illegal, as well as entire hapless childlike nations that have not yet physically landed on our shores with hands outstretched.
The West ?- specifically, the European, Canadian, Australian and American men whose inventions like the piano, representative democracy, pasteurization, vaccination, antiseptics, antibiotics, electrification, engines, generators, suspension bridges, "Lord of the Rings," the antislavery movement, the doctrine of Free Will, computers, opera, the theory of evolution, stainless steel, asphalt roads, telephones, photography, refrigeration, indoor plumbing, the movies, insecticide and the skyscraper have made the world infinitely better for its billions of inhabitants ?- constitutes a Head Start program for the entire planet.
As with the version tried with "underprivileged" kids in the U.S., performance improves during the intensive initial effort, but once the program's over, the improvements fade away.
People in the West used to understand how unprecedented and unique their achievements were. To pick up on a new idea is one thing; to conceive a new idea is another thing entirely. Anyone can be taught how to drive a car, but only a few dozen Western men had what it took to design, build and perfect the automobile.
This is a difference of kind, not of degree. Objectively speaking, one Albert Schweitzer is "worth" all his patients put together ?- but of course that's not at all how men like Dr. Schweitzer are wont to view their fellow human beings.
Hoping that demography is destiny, the races of the human race are now engaged in a different kind of race: reproduction.
Hispanics boast of reconquering California and the Southwest through numbers alone. The Palestinians speak openly of "Arabizing" Israel with their "population bomb." "Greater Albania" is on the move throughout the Balkans, parlaying the "greatness" of numbers into domination of Serbia, Kosovo and Macedonia.
The same race is on in Kashmir and a hundred other places. Only the West is failing to weaponize population growth.
The ancient Romans imploded demographically, and Rome fell long ago. Yet the Eternal City still stands, and much of Roman civilization lives on in our minds and hearts. So it is possible to believe that we too, like Tolkien's Aragorn, "will not let the White City fall."
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 04:53 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
I'll comment on Coombs et al here when I see some direct quotes in context rather than paraphrases by somebody obviously with an agenda out to smear somebody they don't like.

And you're not going to take the minute and a half to copy her name into Google to check for yourself if - oy - this isn't really true, is it? - because ... not knowing and still being able to brush it aside as probably more liberal defamation is ... more comfortable? Did I get that right?

More from the same article:

Quote:
Just this February, [Washington] Times officials had to apologize to a Jewish group for publishing one anti-Semitic ad for a book called For Fear of the Jews. What they didn't say was that they had published similar ads nine other times in a single month last fall, plus another from a key Holocaust denial outfit. [..]

Most of Marian Coombs' especially inflammatory writings have appeared in white supremacist venues such as The Occidental Quarterly, which ran her glowing review of a book on "racially conscious" whites by Robert S. Griffin, a member of the neo-Nazi National Alliance. But the Times has published its share. [..]

In at least two Times pieces, Coombs cites Nick Griffin, head of the British National Party (BNP), as an authority on Muslim culture. In fact, eight paragraphs of one short story are quotations from Griffin. What Coombs forgets to mention is that the BNP is a whites-only extremist party whose leader has been convicted in England of race-hate crimes.

Elsewhere, she is more candid. In Chronicles, a key far-right publication, Coombs expanded on some of her ideas on race in an article bitterly condemning globalization. Healthy cultures, she suggested, will "proudly prefer [their] own people." Such a people will, among other things, "revel in the unrivaled beauty of [their] characteristic complexion, hair texture, eye color and head shape." [..]

Started in 2002, the [Occidental Quarterly] is published by William H. Regnery II of the famous publishing family. Regnery said he started it because "conservatives have simply become indistinguishable from progressives on issues of race and ethnicity." The magazine is dedicated to the study of "racial character," and its first issue called for dividing America into racial mini-states.

Coombs would not respond to any questions about his wife's frequent articles for the magazine. [..]

Robert Stacy McCain, a key Washington Times editor [..] has suggested that "perfectly rational people" react with "altogether natural revulsion" to interracial marriage. [..]

McCain, whose articles run under headlines like "Backlash Building in White America," still works at The Washington Times. Under the direction of Fran Coombs and national editor Ken Hanner, in fact, McCain puts together the paper's page-two "Culture Briefs" section. In that section, McCain has used excerpts from racist venues including American Renaissance magazine and the VDARE website.

(For her part, Coombs has written articles for VDARE and once wrote to American Renaissance: "Whites do not like crowded societies, and Americans would not have to live in crowds if our government kept out Third-World invaders.")

In fact, McCain may be the only mainstream newspaper reporter to have covered four American Renaissance conferences. Twice, he offered no description of the group, which is devoted to race science. Once, he said it was "critical of liberal positions on race and immigration." Only in 2004 did he note that some viewed it as racist. [..]

The Washington Times has taken something of a public relations beating recently. This Jan. 20, it ran an ad attacking Jews as "those folks of the anti-Christ." After the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington complained, Times general manager Richard Amberg Jr. wrote the group to profusely apologize, claiming the Times "never knowingly" allows ads that "denigrate religions."

That may be. But in just one sample period in late 2004, the newspaper ran at least nine similar ads ?- on Oct. 11, 13, 15, 20, 22, 26, 29, 30 and 31 ?- many of them plugging an anti-Semitic book called For Fear of the Jews.

On Dec. 6, it went one better, publishing an ad for the Institute for Historical Review, a leading anti-Semitic hate group that specializes in denying the World War II Holocaust.

Still withholding judgement until you hear more info that you won't look up yourself?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 05:44 pm
Quote:
Started in 2002, the [Occidental Quarterly] is published by William H. Regnery II of the famous publishing family. Regnery said he started it because "conservatives have simply become indistinguishable from progressives on issues of race and ethnicity." The magazine is dedicated to the study of "racial character," and its first issue called for dividing America into racial mini-states.


That's a dilly, nimh. Regnery publishes Coulter and a whole host of rightwing folks. It also published
Quote:
On August 30, The New York Times revealed that syndicated columnist and CNN Crossfire co-host Robert Novak -- whom the Times called one of the "stoutest defenders of Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry" -- has a conflict of interest in writing and speaking about the book: His son, Alex Novak, is director of marketing for its publisher, Regnery Publishing, Inc. But that isn't the only connection between Novak and Regnery -- there are other connections Novak has not disclosed while discussing the publishing house and its books.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 05:45 pm
Here are a couple of pieces from June, 2004, providing more insight into the journalistic objectivity of the Washington Times. And the one at the bottom is 02/04/05

I don't have time to comment, but I thought these might aid the discussion.

http://www.campaigndesk.org/archives/000681.asp


Quote:
Cheap Shot
June 30, 2004
Washington Times Takes It a Slur Too Far

The Washington Times is owned by fringe religious leader Rev. Sun Myung Moon, who, in addition to having been saluted by members of Congress, has spoken rapturously of the mass extinction of gays and called on Jews to apologize for killing Jesus. Despite all that, Moon's newspaper has from its start in 1982 earnestly aspired to journalistic respectability. Though the Times' political coverage is routinely and transparently slanted, the newspaper does do a decent job with non-political news, and its editorial page, while relentlessly conservative, isn't any more over-the-top than that of the generally well-respected Wall Street Journal. In short, despite its ownership and its partisan tint, the paper could make a legitimate argument for being included in a list of voices to be taken seriously.

Right up until today.

The Times officially jumped the shark this morning, running one of the most repugnant and ugly pieces of commentary we've seen any place other than a men's room wall. In an op-ed, Jack Wheeler, publisher of a website billed as "the oasis for rational conservatives," compares women readers waiting in line all over the country to get their copy of Bill Clinton's autobiography signed to "prostitutes waiting for their abusive pimp"; he takes a swipe at "Hanoi John" Kerry as someone who "looks like a cross between Herman Munster and Gomer Pyle"; and he asserts that, as part of a deal with her husband, "bisexual" Hillary Clinton gets to fool around with women, as well as "the occasional man like Vince Foster."

We hesitate to even call anyone's attention to this rabid hackery, but when it appears in print in a publication that aspires to be considered a legitimate part of the national conversation it's hard to ignore. So, while we shouldn't have to say this, we will anyway: Ad hominem attacks, rumor-mongering, and character assassination qualify neither as political discourse nor as satire. The Times may be trying to march fitfully toward respectability, but it just found its way into a very deep ditch. And the more pieces it runs like this, the harder it's going to be to get out.

--Brian Montopoli


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50909-2004Jun17.html

Exerpt:
Quote:
The Unification Church has bankrolled huge losses at the Times, which several sources estimated have totaled more than $1 billion over the past 22 years. The paper's losses are running about $20 million annually, one source said; another source offered a slightly higher estimate. Insiders said that Japanese backers of the church had been especially unhappy with the Times's huge losses and with its right-wing positions on global political issues.


http://www.reachm.com/amstreet/archives/2005/02/04/washington-times-apologizes-for-anti-semitic-ad/
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 05:49 pm
Nimh writes
Quote:
And you're not going to take the minute and a half to copy her name into Google to check for yourself


If I was interested I would. I didn't bring up the subject. I was asked if I was going to comment. I answered.

But that aside, why is it that if Foxfyre (and some others) post something others take exception to, it is up to Foxfyre to defend her post. God forbid we should dare to ask others to show why they think it isn't true. But if somebody else posts something, it is up to Foxfyre (and perhaps some othes) to prove why it should be objected to?

Explain that please.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 05:58 pm
source

Quote:
Today, in a story about the new "Pentagon Channel," the Washington Times lets it readers know exactly what it believes to be the role of the national media. Here's the lede of the Times' piece:

The Pentagon has created its own 24-hour television channel to cut out the middleman -- the national media -- in covering news events at the headquarters of the world's most powerful military.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 06:00 pm
http://img-nex.theonering.net/images/scrapbook/8929.jpg

If that is an accurate copy of Coombs writing up there, I think I like her. She is thoroughly un-PC which makes her intellectually honest in my book. I can't see how anything she says paints her as a racist unless there are some here who are so unread to extrapolate Tolkien's White City into a racial euphemism.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 06:07 pm
And leave it to Lola to post an opinion from another BLOG and think it is the gospel truth.

Try here for the real skinny
http://pentagonchannel.mil/
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 06:38 pm
Leave it to Libruls to manufacture an issue where one doesn't exist - The Pentagon Channel has been around a good while - albeit in various incarnations. In earlier form, it was the prime source of broadcast material relating to DOD/Military matters - used pretty much exclusively by media outlets as a place from which to gather material, and by DOD/The Military to communicate directly with their own personnel and their families, though it was publically accessible. Its just that back then, few folks outside of media pros, military buffs, and hardcore news junkies knew anything like it existed. The current deal is that DOD recently has made it much more "untechnical-general-user-freindly" and publicized the fact it is accessible to anyone. So, alarmed that a governmental entity would have the temerity to take steps to more readilly communicate with the public, the Libruls are up in arms over somethin' they just realized existed.

Quote:
About the Pentagon Channel

The Pentagon Channel broadcasts military news and information for the 2.6 million members of the U.S. Armed Forces through programming including:

  • Department of Defense news briefings
  • Military news
  • Interviews with top Defense officials
  • Short stories about the work of our military

In addition to enhancing Department of Defense communications with the 1.4 million active duty service, the Pentagon Channel will provide the 1.2 million members of the National Guard and Reserve and the 650,000 civilian employees of the Department of Defense more timely access to military information and news.

The Pentagon Channel television service is distributed 24/7 and is available to all stateside cable and satellite providers; via American Forces Radio and Television Service, overseas; and via webcast worldwide right here at pentagonchannel.mil.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 06:41 pm
CJR is a BLOG? I don't think so.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 06:44 pm
timberlandko wrote:
Leave it to Libruls to manufacture an issue where one doesn't exist - The Pentagon Channel has been around a good while - albeit in various incarnations. In earlier form, it was the prime source of broadcast material relating to DOD/Military matters - used pretty much exclusively by media outlets as a place from which to gather material, and by DOD/The Military to communicate directly with their own personnel and their families, though it was publically accessible. Its just that back then, few folks outside of media pros, military buffs, and hardcore news junkies knew anything like it existed. The current deal is that DOD recently has made it much more "untechnical-general-user-freindly" and publicized the fact it is accessible to anyone. So, alarmed that a governmental entity would have the temerity to take steps to more readilly communicate with the public, the Libruls are up in arms over somethin' they just realized existed.

Quote:
About the Pentagon Channel

The Pentagon Channel broadcasts military news and information for the 2.6 million members of the U.S. Armed Forces through programming including:

  • Department of Defense news briefings
  • Military news
  • Interviews with top Defense officials
  • Short stories about the work of our military

In addition to enhancing Department of Defense communications with the 1.4 million active duty service, the Pentagon Channel will provide the 1.2 million members of the National Guard and Reserve and the 650,000 civilian employees of the Department of Defense more timely access to military information and news.

The Pentagon Channel television service is distributed 24/7 and is available to all stateside cable and satellite providers; via American Forces Radio and Television Service, overseas; and via webcast worldwide right here at pentagonchannel.mil.


Could you and Foxfire be any farther off the point of the article? It wasn't about the Pentagon Channel. It was about the Washington Times. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 06:47 pm
Lola wrote:
CJR is a BLOG? I don't think so.


CJR itself isn't a blog, but I dunno how else than as an institutional blog one might characterize its daughter site "CJR Daily", from whence came the quote you cited.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 06:49 pm
Quote:
Lola wrote:
And McG, tell us why you chose your avie.


Lola, why did you choose your avatar?


Thank you Tico. You've illustrated my point perfectly.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 06:52 pm
Didn't miss a thing Lola - just makin' my own observation re the criticism of the Washington Times article. I freely acknowledge papers like The Washington Times rile up Libruls. Its their job. Whaddaya think about The Chicago Tribune or The Wallstreet Journal?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/07/2026 at 02:16:08