Canadians want Fox News Now!

:wink: :wink:

Last week I quoted the scary Washington Times' backer, the Unification Church leader Rev. Sun Myung Moon ("Satan's harvest is America," was just one of that charmers' comments), whose paper Al Gore two weeks ago charged was "part and parcel of the Republican Party." Some people wrote in with the rather weak but nonetheless entertainable argument that Moon funds the paper but he has a "hands-off" approach and let's the editors do what they want. (George H.W. Bush made the same claim, by the way-even though a former Washington Times editor has stated otherwise-back in 1996, when Papa Bush collected $100,000 from Moon and his cult for a speaking engagement at which Bush praised the publication as "a paper that in my view brings sanity to Washington, D.C.")

So, let's take a look at the views and not-so-hidden agenda of one of the actual editors of the paper, specifically, assistant national editor Robert Stacy McCain, who has a habit of posting commentary on message boards and elsewhere around the Internet:

"[T]he media now force interracial images into the public mind and a number of perfectly rational people react to these images with an altogether natural revulsion. The white person who does not mind transacting business with a black bank clerk may yet be averse to accepting the clerk as his sister-in-law, and THIS IS NOT RACISM, no matter what Madison Avenue, Hollywood and Washington tell us."

Yes, you read that right: a "natural revulsion" and "THIS IS NOT RACISM."

That was posted by Robert Stacy McCain (who has contributed to New York Press in the past) on a website called Reclaiming the South. The Washington Times editor posts a lot on the right-wing FreeRepublic.com as well, using an assumed name (BurkeCalhounDabney) but often linking back to his personal website, where there are photos of him and the rest of his large family of Seventh Day Adventists (and which identifies him by his real name and as a Washington Times editor). Editor McCain, who hails from Rome, GA, is one of those Confederate types who still hasn't gotten over the Civil War and is trying to get the South to secede. He's a member of a Southern secessionist organization called League of the South. Here's a quote from that group's leader, Michael Hill:

"The day of Southern guilt is over-THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT-and let us not forget that salient fact. NO APOLOGIES FOR SLAVERY should be made. In both the Old and New Testaments slavery is sanctioned and regulated according to God's word. Thus, when practiced in accord with Holy Scripture, it is NOT A SIN. Our ancestors were not evil men because they held slaves. This issue is our Achilles Heel, and the only way to deal with it is to confront our accusers boldly and without guilt. After all, what we are really upholding is GOD'S WORD. Let us fear Him, and we'll fear no man."

ehBeth wrote:

Canadians want Fox News now.


That's what I was watching. And marvelling at. It's a talent, no doubt about it.

LOL. I suppose this thread digressed circa page 4, in that event.....

Foxy was trying to keep focused on the topic which has dominated the latter pages - journalistic ethics. The connection of the discussion of Snood's opinion on that marine General to this topic seemed awfully tenuous.

Ticomaya wrote:

ehBeth wrote:

Canadians want Fox News now.


That's what I was watching. And marvelling at. It's a talent, no doubt about it.

LOL. I suppose this thread digressed circa page 4, in that event.....

Foxy was trying to keep focused on the topic which has dominated the latter pages - journalistic ethics. The connection of the discussion of Snood's opinion on that marine General to this topic seemed awfully tenuous.

I think snood was making his comments in response to some posts earlier on this thread.

Ham discovered Noah "undressed naked" while Noah was sleeping off some wine (Genesis 9:22). To "undress" a sibling's or parent's or grandparent's "nakedness" is a biblical term for committing a sexual act with a sibling's spouse, or with a parent's spouse/children/grandchildren, or with a parent's sibling or their spouse respectively (see Leviticus 18). It was Noah's youngest "son" (grandchildren being included under this title in Biblical Hebrew) Canaan who was directly connected to this event, since as a result it was he and not Ham who was cursed to go into servitude even to his Hamite brethren as well as his Shemite & Japhethic cousins by his grandfather Noah (Genesis 9:25).

As a result of their eponymous ancestor's crime the Bible indicates that Canaanites in Israel's eyes were seen as an increasingly sexually very depraved people (Leviticus 18:27). Thus the land of the Canaanites (specifically the Amorites, Hivites, Hethites, Girgashites and Jebusites) was deemed suitable for conquest by the Israelites on moral grounds. To this day, based upon Deut. 20:16-17, it remains one of the fundamental 613 Jewish Commandments not to keep alive any individual of the Canaanite nations specified in the Torah.

I quoted Snood! Don't draw Snood into this quagmire!