A Letter to the Editor About Media Coverage of Protests

from William White:

The point you make about the media not covering liberal loonies at left-wing protests because such stories would be of dog-bites-man importance has some validity. However, I think you miss two much larger concerns.

First, I do not believe that the existence of left-wing fringe elements at liberal protests is at all common knowledge. Certainly political junkies like us know full well about what really goes on at these rallies. However, I think there is a huge swath of middle America that would be quite startled to get the full picture of liberal protests. I also think that were the media to provide such coverage it would notably alter public opinion on many political topics. (By way of contrast, note how the media cover religion. They almost never cover mainstream religious organizations and activity, but consistently report on religious extremists, and always in a negative light.)

Second, yes, at any political protest you will have elements there shouting, arguing, whatever, that politician so-and-so is a jerk and in bed with special interests and untrustworthy and all that. However, what infuriated me about the antiwar protests when Bush was in office is that the left's level of rhetoric was not just different in degree from what one might commonly see at political rallies but was different in kind. To me, the left became completely unhinged. To regularly brand Bush as Hitler, to regularly refer to the Bush administration as a "regime," to tolerate the not-uncommon calls for Bush's death or assassination reflected a serious change in the nature of political debate in this country. That change was very much a valid news story. In many respects, that change superseded the significance of the war itself. Yet, the media totally and completely ignored and whitewashed the level of lunacy among the left.

Now, maybe I, myself, am an extremist for seeing such an acute liberal bias in the MSM, but, I feel very strongly that the MSM is "at it again." They are working hard to report on fringe conservative protesters as a way to undercut conservative positions when they have regularly ignored the lunacy which exists on the left--and have ignored the size and sway that such extremists hold within the Democratic Party.

(hat tip to WSJ)

Good Grief!

From the Washington Times (but reported from several sources, this is true) "The Department of Homeland Security is warning law enforcement officials about a rise in "rightwing extremist activity," saying the economic recession, the election of America's first black president and the return of a few disgruntled war veterans could swell the ranks of white-power militias.

A footnote attached to the report by the Homeland Security Office of
Intelligence and Analysis defines "rightwing extremism in the United
States" as including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups
that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.

"It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a
single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration," the
warning says."

Thing is, it appears I'm extremely dangerous. Who are the wack jobs in entertainment and the mainstream media? Quiet guy, lives alone=me. War veteran=Me. Bible thumping Christian=Me. Conservative=Me. Now I guess, since I am a Federalist, believes in States rights=Me. Anti-abortion=Me. Believes people should enter the country legally=Me. Yep, I'm one of the most dangerous people in America.

Jamie Foxx rants against a 16 year old girl, Miley Cirus:
"Make a sex tape and grow up!"
"Who is Miley Cyrus? The one with all the gums? She needs to get a gum transplant!"
A woman is heard calling Cyrus the b-word.

Very nice, class act, Foxx. Good Grief! How about growing up yourself, and maybe not pick on children.


MONTPELIER, Vt. — The Vermont Legislature is considering a bill that would legalize so-called "sexting" between teenagers.

Sexting refers to the exchange of explicit photos and videos via mobile phone. Under current laws, participants can be charged with child pornography, but lawmakers are considering a bill to legalize the consensual exchange of graphic images between two people 13 to 18 years old. Passing along such images to others would remain a crime.

Supporters told The Burlington Free Press they don't want to condone the behavior but they don't think teenagers should be prosecuted as sex offenders for consensual conduct.

The bill passed the state Senate earlier this month. The House Judiciary Committee will hear testimony on it this week.

That's good. Let's have boys and girls set themselves up for attacks by pedophiles and rapists. Good Grief! How about some legislation to protect kids? There are still states that have not passed Jessica's law, and judges that set convicted/serial pedophiles free.