GraniteGrok

Yeah, I would never have known that words like these:

• cocky
• arrogant
• defensive
• flippant
  

are now off limits.  Yeah, you too?  That's right - these now are considered a solid part of the PC vocabulary of impoliteness.  And yet, as a holder of two degrees and over a 1/2 century of living on this mud ball, I just HAD. NO. IDEA. that if I used any of those in that group of words, I was unwittingly playing the racist card, that I was being (shudder) a NOT NICE PERSON ANYMORE.

Like all things Politically Correct, someone else decided to make that decision on their own and then start throwing the accusations against other clueless (but generally nice) folks who thought that these adjectives simply had their standard, every day definitions.

The person in charge of this idiocy?  <Gulp> that famous arbiter of good taste, Keith Olbermann of MSNBC (H/T: NewsBusters).  And his reason?  

A bunch of Right leaning pundits just happen to use those adjectives in describing Obama's SOTU (State Of The Union).  I guess the line of reasoning is that because they are against the policies of the President, and the President happens to be black, and Olbermann likes the President and they don't, so those pundits are knuckle-dragging racists.  Who knew?

I've come to the conclusion that I could care not what the other side calls me anymore - I'm tired of someone else thinking that they are allowed to change the game on the rest of us in the middle of it and then throwing the flag and expecting us to bow down to their authority.

Like in this state, Zandra Rice Hawkins.  Head of the Progressive-based

sidebar: the only "progress" that Progressives want to achieve is to move forward away from the strictures placed upon Government by the US Constitution.

Granite State Progress (funded mostly by out-of state Progressive money from Colorado) who just loves to do the same thing locally.  She thinks she gets to set the standards of behavior, then hold others to her proclamations, and tries to skewer them in the Press for their perceived failures to obey her pronouncements (even as her beloved unions like the SEIU get a pass).

Again, Political Correctness is nothing more than a way to control someone else's speech - to constrict the other person's way of talking or a way of thinking about a situation.  Thus, they build in a way, in a Progressive way, to limit your freedom of speech or behavior (think a "GOTCHA" moment).

One that is protected by the First Amendment.   That they wish to effectively take away from you.  From us

For that reason alone, these Busybody, Chuckleheads like Olbermann and Rice-Hawkins ought to be ignored, shunned, or ridiculed....personally, I prefer the latter...

Posted by Skip at 9:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Yeah, if Conservatives are caught doing the wrong thing or saying the wrong thing, they get excoriated in a femtosecond and usually are forced out and put into the public stocks a couple of milliseconds later.  A Democrat in good standing like Senate Majority Leader, Senator Harry Reid(as opposed to Joe Lieberman) or President Clinton based on the new exploding all around?  Pass-a-roonie!

What Bill said:

The day after Iowa, [Bill Clinton] phoned Kennedy and pressed for an endorsement, making the case for his wife. But Bill then went on, belittling Obama in a manner that deeply offended Kennedy. Recounting the conversation later to a friend, Teddy fumed that Clinton had said, A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.

What Harry said:

On page 37, a remark, said "privately" by Sen. Harry Reid, about Barack Obama's racial appeal. Though Reid would later say that he was neutral in the presidential race, the truth, the authors write, was that his

encouragement of Obama was unequivocal. He was wowed by Obama's oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama -- a "light-skinned" African American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one," as he said privately.  Reid was convinced, in fact, that Obama's race would help him more than hurt him in a bid for the Democratic nomination.

What BlueHampshire has said (at time of writing [delayed posting]):

Yeah, that's right - nada.  Given what Doug said? The entire NH Lefty blogosphere erupted "Hate!", "Bigot!", "Racist!".  Now when confronted with two of their own prominent offenders, zippo!

Look, was it wrong?  If one adheres to Political Correctness, yes.  The bigger problem is that Political Correctness itself is biased - if the words, if the deeds, are done by the WRONG person, it is hate speech and the Libs are all over that person like killer bees.

Let it be "one of their own" and it's "oh, she slipped up" or "let's just move on - its already done and over with" or "you're taking it out of context".

Whatever happened to the "no apology will ever be sufficient!" statement when confronting a racist / bigoted slur?  When will the hounding begin to see Harry gone?  After all, isn't what's good for the Gander good for the Goose?  Apparently, unless a scalp can be obtained, it's no big deal at all. If a scalp can be knifed off, then it is public angst to the max.

And that is the hypocrisy of it all - and why it is so detrimental to us all.  Either something is wrong for all or it is not wrong at all.

Posted by Skip at 8:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

And I'm getting to the point where I just really don't care what they think - I have enough on my plate worrying about what word is "in" or "out" (or back "in") and I'm now getting old enough to not really care at all what all the aggrieved "feel".  Given the self-rightousnes of the Left in their use of words towards the Right, yet not demanding it of themselves or their sub-groups, I'm going to ignore it.

After all, if Carol Shea-Porter, my Congresscritter, can call TEA Partiers "tea-baggers" with impunity or apology (her usage made it to the national blog level), and Dean Barker from BlueHampshire can label anyone that wishes to defend traditional marriage as a "hater".

Sidebar: even Richard from NH Insider has noticed this trend in Dean towards "the silencing of dissent" attitude on the occasion when Al Franken, as the presiding officer, refused to allow Joe Lieberman a minute extra time to finish his speech on the Senate floor:

Dean Barker's opening comment on Blue Hampshire to this denial of free speech? "Al Franken, quickly becoming one of my favorite people."

But then again, Dean seems to hide when the chance to debate shows up, so I'm not surprised at this "silencer" (heh!).

I note the large case of hypocrisy from those that wish for us on the Right to use only the words THEY deem allowable even as they refuse to lead by example and follow their own demands.

I refuse to bow to their demands - and so should you. As the book by Orwell, 1984, brought out - when one controls the language, one controls the argument.  Control words sufficiently, and one controls the thoughts. Which, by the way, is the end game of the Left.  So, what brought on this micro-rant?  This:

Yale Wimps Out Again

A T-shirt calling Harvard men "sissies" proves too offensive for students and administrators.

So, calling your football rivals sissies, in a rivalry that is as important in the Ivy League as the Army / Navy game is to the military, is Doubleplusungood?  I've listened to what  fans (especially some college ones) call their rivals during games.  REALLY crude words and phrases thrown around in the "pounds" (e.g., the special areas where the REALLY partisan fans are penned up).  Complaints are made, mostly due to REALLY little kids being around. THAT'S cause for complaint. Complaining about the word "sissy" on a T-shirt? "Too much time" comes to mind. Back to the Yale Daily News:

The [Freshman Class Council] has decided to change the design of its shirts after the original design, which was submitted by students and voted on by the freshman class, sparked outcry from members within the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community. …

The original design, which won out over five other entries, displayed an F. Scott Fitzgerald quote in the front — “I think of all Harvard men as sissies” — in bold white letters. The back of the long-sleeved, navy blue T-shirt said “WE AGREE” in capital letters, with “The Game 2009” scrawled in script underneath it.

So, the ordinary folks, out to pull a prank (of sorts - kinda weak if you ask me) decided on the winning design only to be done in by a word that only "insiders" knew about? What a way to force your will upon others - by once again claiming victim status and as an oppressed minority. And this wasn't even aimed at one of the members of that protected class - it was aimed at an entire university?  Geez....

"Girlie men"...

Continue reading "Doubleplusungood - The Left is demanding that yet another word be dropped from the popular lexicon simply on their say so - sheer Political Correctness...those Sissies!" »

Posted by Skip at 8:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

While a bit long, this video put out by the Free Congress Foundation is worth your time:

Summary: This video researches the academic underpinnings and history of Political Correctness stemming from the Frankfurt School in the 1930s. What they found can be dryly summarized is that Political Correctness is nothing more than a cultural tool of Marxists that is being successfully used to "pull the foundational bricks out of the wall of Western society". Tolerance is now defined by Leftists and radical multiculturalists as solely those ideas promulgated by the them, albeit, wrapped up in what used to be well understood words that are now being completely re-purposed by Leftist definition. Thus, by definition, the ideas and Rights upheld by traditional Americans and Conservatives / Libertarians are automatically deemd intolerant and therefore free to be attacked and those holding such views as to be fought.

So, what is the takeaway? Backing down from Political Correctness is giving assent to the Left. Given, however, the power to destroy peoples' lives (as we have seen) for simply disagreeing with their hate speech and attitude, we can see how insidious this notion has become ingrained. The question now is: is Political Correctness (as used by the protected "victim classes"), under the guise of "social justice" and "multiculturalism" stronger than the ideals as originally laid out in the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution? Is it time to use their own tactics against them (just as Liberty and Freedom folks are seeing that Alinsky's Rules for Radicals work for them just as well as they worked for Marxists? Like Obama during his Chicago days?

What say you?

(H/T:  Transsylvania Phoenix)

Posted by Skip at 8:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Political Correctness:     Purposeful Disingenuousness and Misleadingness.

Time to call it for what it is - there is nothing polite (nor politic) about it.

It is THE means to silence dissent - usually used by the Left.

(H/T: NRO)

Posted by Skip at 8:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Melanie Phillips is an outspoken writer from Great Britain - she often ends up in hot water for her opposition to the Islamiaation of Great Britain - it was she that coined the name "Londonistan".  In this column from November, she discusses how liberal (not the big "L", but the classic definition of Western liberalism) Western philosophical tenets such as democracy, free speech, practice of religion, and our traditional philosophy of life are all being undermined.

In a different way, it speaks to the analogy that I have used for years (and most recently here) - continue to remove the bricks that make up the "wall of society" and eventually it will fall down.  Many who practice this, I believe, are the "useful idiots": believing that if something sounds "nice" why not do it and never go past the surface levels to see what the effects are on our fundamental "bricks".  Helping the poor?  Great!  Raising taxes to do so?  Is skewing taxes to do just that "redistribution" for and to the poor such that it heavily taxes the rich and middle classes?  Just look at California and New York to see the effects when the tax revenues dry up as the rich go broke.

As they are now doing here in the US (currently masked by the recession).  But back to the main point that this "yanking the bricks" has been for decades ("abstracting" and emphasis mine):

We were fools to think the fall of the Berlin Wall had killed off the far Left. They're back - and attacking us from within

...To so many, that heady day seemed to herald the emergence of a better world. The spectre of communism had finally been laid to rest. Liberty had triumphed over tyranny.

The end of the Cold War even led some to proclaim that this was 'the end of history'  -  which was to say that liberal democracy was now the dominant and unchallengeable force in the world.

The collapse of communism was actually a slow-burning process. Its moral and political bankruptcy became obvious decades before that glorious Berlin day in November 1989

...But what is perhaps less obvious is that communism did not just vanish in a puff of historical smoke. The Soviet Union was defeated and fell apart, for sure. But the communist ideology that fuelled it did not so much disintegrate as reconstitute itself into another, even more deadly form as the active enemy of western freedom.

Subversive

Soviet Communism was a belief system whose goal was to overturn the structures of society through the control of economic and political life. This mutated into a post-communist ideology of the Left, whose no-less ambitious aim was to overturn western society through a subversive transformation of its culture.

For many communist fellow travellers, the scales fell from their eyes when the Hungarian uprising was crushed in 1956. Others, over the years, lost faith not just in communism but in its less radical sister, socialism, as their core tenet of 'equality' proved itself in a myriad different ways to be the enemy of freedom and justice, with market forces appearing to carry the torch of liberty instead.

But as communism slowly crumbled, those on the far-Left who remained hostile towards western civilisation found another way to realise their goal of bringing it down.

This was what might be called 'cultural Marxism'...

Continue reading "More on Political Correctness from Melanie Phillips" »

Posted by Skip at 8:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Filing under "Political Correctness". "Dispostions" have migrated from Schools of Social Work to Schools of Ed.  Freedom of Thought?  Freedom of Speech?  Freedom of Belief? 

The philosophy of Individual Freedom is dying in the places where it should be carefully nurtured - in our schools.  Seems however, with this nonsense and other systems putting in curriculum that is specifically more "world oriented" (think International Baccalaureate) than "American values oriented", we may be in trouble.  Deep trouble. 

Well, now we know the answer - at least in part.  Back at the turn of the last century, my "kind" were not wanted (at least on my Dad's side) in Boston:                                      Irish need not apply

Later on in the century, these signs were seen:     Negros need not apply

Well, both the University of Minnesota and NH have hung out this shingle:  Conservatives, don't even bother

With few Conservatives serving in our school, it seems that the Educational-Industrial complex (remember, here in the US we spend more on education than on the military) doesn't even want them to apply to become teachers! And if they do, they will have to give up their beliefs lock, stock, and barrel.  I first caught wind of this over at Critical Mass (Erin OConnor) in a post called "Reeducation in Minnesota" as she brings the story by Katherine Kersten of the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune - I urge you to read the entire piece:

Do you believe in the American dream -- the idea that in this country, hardworking people of every race, color and creed can get ahead on their own merits? If so, that belief may soon bar you from getting a license to teach in Minnesota public schools -- at least if you plan to get your teaching degree at the University of Minnesota's Twin Cities campus.

In a report compiled last summer, the Race, Culture, Class and Gender Task Group at the U's College of Education and Human Development recommended that aspiring teachers there must repudiate the notion of "the American Dream" in order to obtain the recommendation for licensure required by the Minnesota Board of Teaching. Instead, teacher candidates must embrace -- and be prepared to teach our state's kids -- the task force's own vision of America as an oppressive hellhole: racist, sexist and homophobic.

Once again, just in the horrible event at Fort Hood where Jihadi Hassan gunned down his fellow soldiers because "political correctness" violations might have ruined the careers of those that could have put a stop to this Islamic warrior. 

Political Correctness: death in disguise there, and here.  For it is not enough the NEA and AFT (teachers unions) can't teach Johnny and Janie to read, do math, to learn where countries are  on a globe, major parts of American history and civics.  However, their teachers will be up to date on the latest political correctness!

So, what does the U of Minn. School of Education think most important? Cultural competence.  They truly believe that the problem is not in having teachers know the actual basics of what they teach but

The task group is part of the Teacher Education Redesign Initiative, a multiyear project to change the way future teachers are trained at the U's flagship campus. The initiative is premised, in part, on the conviction that Minnesota teachers' lack of "cultural competence" contributes to the poor academic performance of the state's minority students. Last spring, it charged the task group with coming up with recommendations to change this. In January, planners will review the recommendations and decide how to proceed.

The report advocates making race, class and gender politics the "overarching framework" for all teaching courses at the U. It calls for evaluating future teachers in both coursework and practice teaching based on their willingness to fall into ideological lockstep.

Silly me - I would want English teachers that actually knew English grammer and literature.  My math teachers - well, math.  Science teachers would know geology, chemistry, biology, physics, and the rest.  In short - know the course materials.  These chuckleheads, however, believe that teachers HAVE to be in an environment  where Political Correctness is running amok; no thinking for yourself here! 

Instead of demanding that students rise to excellence, student teachers will need to suffer these liberal fools' idea of "the right outlook".

What it boils down to is this: 

Continue reading "And they wonder why Conservatives are not in Education?" »

Posted by Skip at 8:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

My friend, Warner Todd Huston, found and noted upon this over at Big Government (is there NO WHERE this "Sleep?  Who needs sleep??" dude DOESN'T blog):

I have made the vow that if a retail establishment greets me with "Happy Holidays", then I will not spend my dollars with them; I no longer will stand for Political Correctness.  At this time of the year, I would easily be correct in stating that the vast majority of retail sales (brick and morter, 'Net, catalog, et al) are oriented around a Christian Holiday - the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ.

Now, am I enrmoured with the amount of commercialization around this time of year?  Absolutely!  Do I agree with the notion that the degree of money in the season has over-ridden the real reason?  Yup!  Do I agree that the Political Correctness is being used to push the real reason out of the public square?  You bet.

This ad screams out - it's safe to mention a politically correct, protected class of folks - Muslims - but not the Christians for whom the ad is really for. 

Oh, I'm betting that CAIR is going to have their panties in a bunch over this, but if you happen to have forgotten, we are still at war with their fundamentalist brothers who believe that either we all should convert and follow Shari'a law, follow a life of dhimmitude, or die.

Posted by Skip at 5:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

As to the events of the last couple of days, I would again refer to my original statement:

CLICK HERE FOR STATEMENT

Since the time I issued that, I have spoken to the several media that I was able to receive their calls. I have taken an honest and contrite approach to my actions and the resulting consequences, and have been as open and frank as I can possibly be. There is nothing that can “unring the bell” so to speak, and all I can do is stand by my apology and continue to ask for forgiveness.

For those who do not know, I no longer have my position as the Thursday columnist at the Laconia Daily Sun, and, understandably, Meet the New Press radio has been axed by Nassau Broadcasting as well. I believe that these are the proper and appropriate consequences, and I apologize to the good people at the paper and the radio station who have been wonderful to me over the years and were completely undeserving of the grief my actions have caused them.

Additionally, I will no longer write at GraniteGrok for an as yet undetermined amount of time. I plan on spending my time in prayer and reflection, looking inward to the unhealthy malice in my heart, for which I will ultimately have to face my Maker , begging for His undeserved mercy.

One last point-- and then I ask for peace and privacy in this matter. In addition to those listed in my original apology statement, I owe my great friend Skip Murphy the most sincerest of apologies for all that has resulted from my inexcusable actions. Through no fault of his, all that has been built with great effort and heartache is now mostly all gone. In an instant. Like that…

Let this be a lesson to those who harbor such hatred as I have demonstrated—think about it. We must love EVERYBODY as we do ourselves.  And all the world is a camera. There is no hiding anymore.

I engaged in a WHOLE lot of free speech around here. With that, comes responsibility. Use it wisely.

Posted by Doug at 8:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (44) | TrackBacks (0)

This year's insane yearbook policy running amok story (isn't there at least one like it EVERY year, someplace?) first came to my attention via Michael Graham's website. Using a picture of a young soldier wearing the combat uniform cap, and another of a Muslim woman wearing the traditional headscarf, the blogger writes,

One of the photos above would be banned from the Merrimack High School yearbook. The other would be perfectly fine.  Care to guess which one?

Yep, you got it:

At Merrimack Valley High, the yearbook policy prohibits photos like the one Jordan Westgate submitted. He's wearing his army combat hat, and he's standing in front of the American flag. What's the problem? asks Jordan, a senior who completed the Army's basic training last summer.

To deal with dummies who submitted dopey photos for the formal section of the yearbook, Merrimack High put some basic rules in place. Among the rules: You can’t cover your head.  Except when you can:

It certainly didn't help when Dee, anticipating a fight and searching for ammunition, found a picture of a Muslim girl who covered her head with a traditional scarf in the 2007 yearbook's junior class section.

Dee quickly slid the little photo of the Muslim girl across the kitchen counter to bolster her case.

"We feel we're being discriminated against for being in the military," Dee said. "She had to wear something as part of her religion. What's the difference?"

We ALL know what “the difference” is.  One student joined an organization known for its discipline and professionalism, the US military. The other is a member of a group whose members have been declared a protected minority by American liberals.

Indeed. Read the rest here. What would we expect from a society that makes criminals out of young children that bring cakes and knives to cut with to school-- both for the knife, AND the sugar.

Posted by Doug at 7:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Now they let us know about their definition of diversity. Problem is, they don't see anything wrong with this...

Standing Up for the Swarthy

The National Education Association’s board of directors approved the following recommendation of its Committee on Ethnic Minority Affairs:

“That NEA advertising materials and publications portray a wider range of skin colors – especially darker shades in both Hispanics and African Americans. All phenotypes should be equitably represented in NEA materials and should convey the range of characteristics in ethnic and racial groups.”

Bravo, NEA! For too long you have featured Lombards at the expense of Neapolitans. Thank you for correcting this historic injustice.

So much for the green with red polka minorities.

Equality - remember, for the NEA, isn't about equal opportunity, it's about only about equal outcome based on quotas...

(H/T: EIA Intercepts)

Posted by Skip at 5:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

It seems that we had more folks at the Tea Parties than what I thought:

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) conducted a clandestine monitoring operation on last week’s Tea Party protests, filming and cataloging the hundreds of thousands of Americans who acted on their First Amendment right to Free Speech.

The FBI operation reportedly began on March 29 with a single-page memo to the organization’s 56 field offices, mandating data collection on American citizens who were planning the demonstrations. The Special Agents in Charge (SACs) were instructed to verify the date, time and location of each TEA Party within their region and supply that information to FBI headquarters in Washington.

A second directive, issued on April 6, instructed the SACs of each field office “to coordinate and conduct, either at the field office level and/or with the appropriate resident agency, covert video surveillance and data collection of the participants of the TEA parties.” Surveillance was to be performed from “discreet fixed or mobile positions” and was to be performed “independently and outside of the purview of local law enforcement.”

The information comes from an FBI agent who leaked the information to The Canada Free Press. “Listen to what I am saying,” the agent said during an interview with Doug Hagmann, founder (NEIN).  “The Department of Homeland Security Intelligence Assessment that is receiving so much attention is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg, and the true patriotic citizens of this country are on the Titanic. This is what bothers me. But is goes far beyond that assessment. There have been very significant changes made over the last few years that redirect the focus and assets of the intelligence community internally. These changes have greatly accelerated under this administration, and the threats have been redefined to include those who used to be patriots. It’s not only chilling but absolutely insulting to God-fearing Americans."

Frankly, I'm not surprised, really.  In fact, I might think that "laxity" might be a word that would come to mind if they ignored the whole thing like Obama is said to have "unaware" of the gatherings of hundreds of thousands of people.  I bet they were monitoring the illegal alien marches of year or so ago too.

My problem lies in conjunction with the DHS report and other news bits that seem to give the indication that security and other focuses are being moved from being external to being refocused to internal and with a large sector of the population as that target.

Yeah, folks that used to be considered "America First" (notice I left off the word "Blame" as being first) patriots....

Posted by Skip at 6:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Ain't it the truth....ditto for "tolerance" and "acceptance" too.  Sheer blather from those that have to make themselves feel good about themselves....from NRO:

Celebrate Diversity . . .

except veterans, small-business owners, practicing Catholics, gun owners, talk-radio listeners, tea-party attendees, Texans, smokers, limited-government proponents, pro-lifers, taxpayers, NASCAR fans, Boy Scouts, oil-company employees, secure-border advocates, capitalists, global-warming agnostics, Cuban refugees, school-choicers . . .

In her latest column, Kathleen Parker talked about diversity (specifically those putrid PSAs about how WONderful diversity is in housing that I hate so much - just more tax dollars spent on absolute drivel) and reminded me about something I had forgotten:

In fact, Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam found that diversity hampers civic engagement: The greater the diversity, the less people engaged in charity and community projects. In the most diverse communities, people trust each other half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings.

Putnam, a pro-diversity fellow, didn't particularly like his findings and has insisted that the data suggest challenges rather than excuses to avoid diversification. Hear, hear. But wouldn't those challenges best be met by individuals discovering the rewards of diversity rather than by receiving the superior wisdom of bureaucrats through chirpy public service messages? 

Lesson to the Lefties: When you keep jamming Diversity down peoples' throats, they tend to turn off.  Then they get mad.  Then they will really tell you what to think - and then they will do the opposite.  Free people hate being told what to do as if they were little children.  Which we are not.

Wanna help your cause?  Shut up for a while - if it is a good idea, a free people will adopt it.  Otherwise, it was a stupid idea in the first place and deserves all the attention that a free people give it.

Leave us alone...

Posted by Skip at 8:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Filed under Political Correctness

We just finished Black History Month (February).  Now, I see this story in the Chicago Tribune:

Maggie Anderson drives 14 miles to buy groceries, which might seem curious given that she lives in bustling Oak Park. She and her husband, John, patronize gas stations in Rockford and Phoenix, Ill. They travel 18 miles to a health food store in Chicago's South Shore neighborhood for vitamins, supplements and personal care products.

The reason? They want to solve what they call "the crisis in the black community." They want to, as they say, "buy black."

The Andersons, African-Americans who rose from humble means, are attempting to spend their money for one year exclusively with black-owned businesses and are encouraging other African-Americans to do the same. It is part experiment, part social activism campaign.

They call it the "Ebony Experiment."

So, in the spirit (like many before me), let me ask the Very Politically Incorrect questions: does being a racist depend only on your skin color?  If I said the same thing, except with a change in skin color, would I be classified as a racist? 

I make the observation only that until we all truly become color-blind, this will continue to happen over and over again.  I agree, helping out certain businesses can be a good thing - of COURSE I patronize certain establishments over others due to costs, quality, and the relationship that I may have with the owners or the staff.

But does color play a role in my choice?  No.

'Cause if I did, some people would be using a specific term thrown in my general direction.  And they would be right.

Posted by Skip at 12:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

...the schools would become politically oriented:

Jackson Public Schools board member to teachers who did not show inauguration: Go home

Jackson Public Schools board member Sheila Patterson had a strong message Tuesday for some teachers who did not "feel it was important" to show the inauguration of President Barack Obama during class.

"They don't belong in this school district -- not the type of district we have here," Patterson said at Tuesday's board meeting.

Patterson was speaking of the 43 percent minority student population, and that the inauguration of the first black president was an historic event no matter what political viewpoint one has.

"I am just very very disappointed," she said.

Oops, wrong President....

On a serious note, would it really have been the same reaction if the incoming President had been a black CONSERVATIVE Republican?  I watched with dismay on the invective hurled by Lefty / Liberal / Progressive commentators of all color upon Colin Powell and Condelezza Rice over the past 8 years - it was not a pretty sight.

Look, politics of ANY stripe should be verbotten in any classroom be it Right or Left.  The unfortunate reality is that conservative message is not standing next to that of the liberal message due to lack of numbers, intimidation, and general environment. 

And right now, I'm not going to touch the implicit race baiting of the above Board member.

(few more thoughts on this over at American Princess filling in a little in helping) 

Posted by Skip at 8:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

One of the most annoying commercials I see on TV is one put up by the NH Electric Co-op where this twerp of a tweener is hectoring her parents to "save the planet" by cutting down on their energy use.  Stock the fridge full, Dad.  Shut off the lights, Mom!  Let the dishes air dry; yada, yada, yada.  I looked - I guess they don't DARE put those commercials out on the web.

I'll tell you straight up - every time I see one of those sappy commercials, I want to just slap that kid for impertinence. Respect for her parents?  The recognition that they just might know more than she does (after all, who is paying the energy bills in that house - her)? Then I want to slap those parents for letting that kid lead them around by their noses.  Respect?  Deference?  Recognition that the sponsors of these commercials think that parents are dolts?  Out the window, in trying to sell their point of view, is that there are real, good reasons why parents are the parents and not just the fact that they were born long before this irritating nag of a girl was even a gleam in someone's eye.

My biggest peeve?  Once again, the parents are shown as being clueless.  Hey, without this smarta** daughter telling her parents how to live their lives, where would Mom and Dad be?  After all, kids know best, even with an incomplete education and a short time on earth!

And what's so wrong with ridiculing the role of parents after all, Skip?  Kids DO know best, right?

Well, there are those that Do believe that teaching kids that they are better than their parents is the way to change society. There is a movement afoot to use our kids to implement their aims for society - and it starts in school.  The value of the parents - meh!  It is OUR ideology that we want to embed into your kids.  This post over at Joane Jacobs got me started:

Environmental educators want children to use “pester power” to socialize their parents, writes Frank Furedi on Pajamas Media.  Children can “be the teachers and tell their parents what to do for a change,” boasts Andrew Sutter of Britain’s Eco-Schools. Oh happy day.

Now, I'm not saying that parents should not listen to their kids - not at all. What I am saying that when others decide to use MY kids to further THEIR agenda, I get a little ticked - and so should you!  I followed that "pester power" link:

Continue reading "I HATE that nagging child in the NH Electric Co-op commercial" »

Posted by Skip at 9:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Filed under Political Correctness.  From CNSNews:

Washington (CNSNews.com) – A proposed homosexual-friendly Chicago public high school is “necessary” for the well-being of students, a Chicago Public Schools administrator told CNSNews.com Wednesday...

The proposed school would offer taxpayer-funded support for homosexual and lesbian students. The school proposal was to be voted on by the Chicago Board of Education on Nov. 19, but the plan was pulled at the last minute.

If approved, the school's mission, according to the school's Web site, would be politically correct: “Project based and problem based learning that addresses real world issues through the lenses of race, gender, culture, economic equity, peace, justice, and the environment will be the catalyst for developing our curriculum.”

So tell me, how does all that teach the basics to students?  Does being homosexual mean that one learns differently?  Does that mean that being gay means one is smarter than average or worse than average? Does this mean that traditional philosophy just doesn't make it here?

Once again, educational basics are being bent so as to fall face down to political correctness - at least Chicago (WHAT IS IT ABOUT CHICAGO lately?).  Sure, I bet all the students (for certain, all the teachers) will be able to enunciate the liberal line when accepting their diplomas (it will be interesting to see what colleges do in evaluating a politically correct curriculum), but will they be able to make change.

And here IS the money question:

When asked how the introduction of social justice high schools improves the performance of the Chicago district, Brown was vague.
 
“Schools need to be connected with the students they teach,” she said.

That's because when one pierces the surface level of political correctness, there's not a heck of a lot of substance.  Thus, I'm not surprised at the answer.  Nothing about rigorous methodologies in following up the curriculum and teaching methodologies to see if the purpose is correct, that the academic results are in line with what is needed.  Nope, we're just going to make them feel good about themselves and thus, we'll feel good about spending all this money.  Sorry folks if I seem just a tad sarcastic, but this looks like a boondoggle for yet another large city that is already in the hole financially that does not seem to understand that "frills" stop with the first red digit.

Brown, who was in Washington to take part in a news conference on college admissions testing, said she did not want the homosexual school’s creation to reflect “that our system has failed and we have to have pullouts.”

Then why are you doing this?

Social Justice High School – Pride Campus is important, she said, because students need “to feel comfortable.”

Comfortable, eh?  Wish somebody had told me, back in the day, that the purpose of school was to make me feel comfortable?  That I was to be the center of attention...to make sure I felt good about myself.

Instead, I got whacked all the time by teachers - they expected me to learn the material they presented.  And isn't that what's important?

Posted by Skip at 2:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

It is now common that political correctness has become a scourge upon the land.  We are not to say certain things because of it; we are only to think "correct" thoughts because of inanity of it.  I see it in the local papers when somebody (usually saying something "conservative") writes something that "insults" the intelligence of the busybodies and they demand that the paper no longer allow such-and-such to submit Letters to the Editor.

The end result desired?  Shutting people up.  

The other end of the politicial correctness spectrum is being forced to take classes 'because they are good for you'.  Well, one person is fighting back - Dr. McPherson is a professor at University of California Irvine in the fields of molecular biology and biochemistry.  When he was told, because of the number of people he supervised, that he had to undergo sexual harrasment training.

He is not amused at being thought of being in need of such (emphasis mine):

Last month, the university finally followed through, sending me a letter announcing that my laboratory and the students I oversaw were to be immediately turned over to other university officials and faculty. I continued to refuse to take sexual harassment training, and do so now.

I am not normally confrontational, so I sought to find a means to resolve the conflict. I proposed the following: I would take the training if the university would provide me with a brief, written statement absolving me of any suspicion, guilt or complicity regarding sexual harassment. I wanted any possible stigma removed. "Fulfilling this requirement," said the statement I asked them to approve, "in no way implies, suggests or indicates that the university currently has any reason to believe that Professor McPherson has ever sexually harassed any student or any person under his supervision during his 30-year career with the University of California."

The university, however, declined to provide me with any such statement, which poses the question: Why not? It is a completely innocuous, unobjectionable statement that they should have been willing to write for any faculty member whose record is as free of stain as is my own. The immediate reply of the administration was that if I didn't comply with the law, I would be placed on unpaid leave.

So why am I am being so inflexible on this issue? Why not simply take the training and be done with it? There are several reasons.

First of all, I believe the training is a disgraceful sham. As far as I can tell from my colleagues, it is worthless, a childish piece of theater, an insult to anyone with a respectable IQ, primarily designed to relieve the university of liability in the case of lawsuits. I have not been shown any evidence that this training will discourage a harasser or aid in alerting the faculty to the presence of harassment.

What's more, the state, acting through the university, is trying to coerce and bully me into doing something I find repugnant and offensive. I find it offensive not only because of the insinuations it carries and the potential stigma it implies, but also because I am being required to do it for political reasons. The fact is that there is a vocal political/cultural interest group promoting this silliness as part of a politically correct agenda that I don't particularly agree with.

[snip]

Sexual harassment is a politically charged issue. The people of California have granted no authority to the state to impose narrow political and cultural opinions on individual citizens.

Posted by Skip at 2:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I hate political correctness - as I said in my recent Letter to the Editor in one of the local papers:

Political Correctness is the last vestige of the insufferable who cannot win on merit.

As Doug pointed out (Negro 101 Part 1 and Negro 101 Part 2), the PC Po-lice were out in full force this past week - all over the use of the word "negro" by a senior citizen's in a Letter to the Editor.  Never mind that he, after voting for Obama, called Obama's ideas all but nutzy - that was left totally alone (imagine that, no defending of the indefensible by the committed!).  No, the "we want everyone to be tolerant NOW" crowd certainly had a certain, shall we say, lack of tolerance themselves and went after the use of a single word.

Thus, when I saw this by Glen Reynolds of Instapundit (hey, he's linked to us in the past - we're just returning the favor!), I had to put it up - a great summary:

JAMES KIRCHICK: Jonathan Crutchley discovers how intolerant the gay community can be.

Money line from Glenn:

Is it just me, or does it seem that the people who are the most demanding of tolerance tend to be those least likely to display it themselves?

Indeed!

Posted by Skip at 11:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

An interesting debate about the "presumptive" Democratic nominee taking place here in the Lakes Region of New Hampshire in our local papers and in cyberspace has escalated into a full blown debate over race, language, and political correctness. It all started when one of the local wags-- a Democrat "seasoned citizen"-- submitted a letter to several local papers. It's author, Mr. Jack Stephenson, is well known to me and is someone I've always found thoughtful, humorous, and honest almost to a fault-- he speaks his mind, and makes no apologies. Well, except when he puts forth his thoughts and later concludes he was mistaken... then, unlike most, he goes out of his way to admit it, and lets everyone know he was wrong with whatever previous mistaken position.

Here's what Jack had to say in the letter printed in the Citizen and Laconia Daily Sun newspapers earlier this week. Keep in mind, he has long been known for his not-always PC, but truthful letters, always with a touch of Yankee humor:

To The Editor,

It is clear that IF we all had the knowledge about Obama which we have heard since he got the "nomination" (not confirmed until their convention), Hillary would be the Democrat candidate. But back then we didn't know that brilliant Obama could not speak intelligently without his staff prepared cue cards. Back then we didn't know that he opposed any increase in safe, clean, cheap energy sources (long proven nuclear, wind, solar and clean coal). Back then we didn't know that he would propose the biggest tax increase ever in the US! Back then some of us thought that he was the same as most USA negros, but he is NOT, and he has become a total insult to our great successful negros in the USA. Back then we didn't know that he was both against the Iraq war and for it, both against battles in Afganistan and for it, and wants to greatly increase number of our troops in Afganistan (the most dangerous place on earth). He is totally for WAR and totally against war, totally for outrageous taxes and totally against taxes, totally for 100% control of all medical care, and totally oppossed to government control of health care.

It is absolutely clear that Obama is totally for and totally against every issue which Americans are concerned with. IE, he is the ultimate politician, as his Church Pastor long ago told us!

Honesty, practicallity, need, usefulness, has nothing to do with Obama. Clearly, Obama is trying to steal from Clinton the title of the world's best LIAR! Hillary tried that, but Obama beat her out for that title.

We must encourage Hillary to take the nomination away from misleading Obama, and give the nation a chance for a fair election. It can happen, and if it doesn't, we are in for a "Hollywood style" president!

Jack Stephenson

Gilford

Well... You just know that that letter certainly caught the eye of the readers locally, including that of the local Democrat Party leaders, most of whom, like their hero Obama, cannot accept the slightest bit of criticism, and immediately cry foul when it occurs. Call Obama unfit to lead? Bigotry! Question his qualifications? How dare we doubt his patriotism! Note his liberal record? Racist! The chair of the Laconia, NH Democrats sounded the alarm in the daily emailed communiqué:

By the way, I don't know how many of you saw the letter to the editor in the Laconia Citizen yesterday from Gilford's Jack Stephenson complaining about Obama.  An excerpt:  Back then some of us thought that he was the same as most USA negros, but he is NOT, and he has become a total insult to our great successful negros in the USA.  Personally, I find that extremely offensive and I'm writing a letter in response.  I encourage each of you to do the same.

This was followed by a later email and blog post reiterating his request to take "Mr. Stephenson to task." And so they did, including none other than NH Democratic Party Chair Ray Buckley. But first out of the gate was another local lib (known to 'Grok readers, perhaps) who fancies himself intellectually superior  to most folks, once again seeking first to dazzle readers with his "vast knowledge" of matters of great importance, in the hopes they'll believe his recollection of history and culture. This week, he gave us HIS version of history-- "Negro 101", if you will:

Continue reading "Democrats ignite race debate in Central NH's Lakes Region. Part One: "Negro 101"" »

Posted by Doug at 7:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Skip at 9:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

For years we've heard that we are all too fat, that we're killing ourselves.  Worse, we as parents are killing our kids because of obesity.

Then how do the Nanny Police explain this:

US life expectancy tops 78 as top diseases decline

For the first time, U.S. life expectancy has surpassed 78 years, the government reported Wednesday, although the United States continues to lag behind about 30 other countries in estimated life span.

The increase is due mainly to falling mortality rates in almost all the leading causes of death, federal health officials said. The average life expectancy for babies born in 2006 was about four months greater than for children born in 2005.

Japan has the longest life expectancy — 83 years for children born in 2006, according to World Health Organization data. Switzerland and Australia were also near the top of the list.

"The international comparisons are not that appealing, but we may be in the process of catching up," said Samuel Preston, a University of Pennsylvania demographer. He is co-chairman of a National Research Council panel looking at why America's life expectancy is lower than other nations'.

The new U.S. data, released Wednesday, come from the National Center for Health Statistics. It's a preliminary report of 2006 numbers, based on data from more than 95 percent of the death certificates collected that year.

Life expectancy is the period a child born in 2006 is expected to live, assuming mortality trends stay constant.

Look, I carry extra pounds, no doubt about it. As I often say, it's not that I overeat, I'm under exercised.  Yet, every time I hear that commercial that says "We may be the first generation that has our kids living shorter lives than their parents."

I guess the above information puts that bit of hyperbole to rest... 

Posted by Skip at 8:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

These past few years we have seen the push-pull between traditional Christians and secular humanists - those that wish to express their religion and those that seemingly wish to suppress all expressions thereof.  No surprise - I'm with the former.  Like it or not, historically we are a Judeo-Christian nation and still remain one of the most religious Western nations. 

With that said, I was both not surprised (but still saddened) when I read this stating that these nine Democrats (which in the aggregate, tend to be much more liberal and much less religious than the general population) decided to vote against a US House of Representative Resolution that

"recognize the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith.” :

Rep. Gary Ackerman (N.Y.)            Rep. Yvette Clarke (N.Y.)

Rep. Diane DeGette (Colo.)            Rep. Alcee Hastings (Fla.)

Rep. Barbara Lee (Calif.)                 Rep. Jim McDermott (Wash.)

Rep. Robert Scott (Va.)                   Lynn Woolsey (Calif.)

Rep. Pete Stark (Calif.)

And then I continued on - what did they vote FOR?

A resolution that supported a House resolution to honor Ramadan -

the Muslim month of fasting.

Posted by Skip at 12:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I did this report yesterday, but given that I am traveling and work precludes a lot of blogging, I figure that our friend John Hawkins (and fairly regular guest on Meet The New Press) says it quite well:

If you add together government bureaucracy + liberal political correctness + health care, it's not surprising that the result is something like this (which is occurring in Britain),

OVERWORKED nurses have been ordered to stop all medical work five times every day to move Muslim patients’ beds so they face towards Mecca.

The lengthy procedure, which also includes providing fresh bathing water, is creating turmoil among overstretched staff on bustling NHS wards.

“Some people might think it is not that big a deal, but we have a huge Muslim population in Dewsbury and if we are having to turn dozens of beds to face Mecca five times a day, plus provide running water for them to wash before and after prayers, it is bound to impact on the essential medical service we are supposed to be providing.

Welcome to the bureaucratic mentality, my friends! Just imagine taking the compassion of the IRS, combining it with the competence of FEMA, and the efficiency of the DMV and then turning it loose on health care in this country. That's what we're headed towards if Hillary Clinton and company get their way.

PS: Want to change our health care for the better without handing it over to the government? Take away the enormous tax breaks we currently hand over to companies for health care and allow people to get tax breaks for their own, individual policies. That would allow many more Americans to be covered, it would put an end to people losing their health coverage because they lost their jobs, and it would drive down the cost of health care. It's a much better, more efficient solution to our problems than socialized medicine.

Healthcare in Britain, under their socialist system, is rationed.  Wait times are growing and I see story after story after story of people needing care being denied that care.  And this is what the Democrats want to bring to us?

Frankly, it is nothing but pandering - and the folks that are buying into it see nothing wrong for everyone else paying for their healthcare needs.  To be sure, almost all systems being offered by the solons do have that component (after all, that's what insurance is).  The stark difference is that the Dems are falling all over themselves in the "...it takes a village..." model, while (for instance, Rudy's plan) tries to take government OUT of the equation and even out the tax inequalities to make that happen. 

Remember - it does not ALWAYS take a village.  Remember this?  What solutions generally need is voluntary cooperation (not coerced by government), a health dash of self-interest, and an ROI doesn't hurt either!

Posted by Skip at 8:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As you well know, Members of Congress have voted themselves sufficient pay raises to be be in the top 5% of all income earners in the US (that boundary is about $145,000/year).   Even though most of them are quite wealthy on their own, they generally give the reason that they have to support two houses and other type balderdash on that paltry amount. 

Tangent Alert: I find it less-than-curious that the Democratic leaders wish to reduce "income inequality" that they say is a looming crisis in the county.  Well, why not lead from the front, lead by example?  You voted yourselves to make your selves rich, if you truly believe that being rich is wrong, you've got over 500 of the richest people in America already regularly meeting in one building - start there!

After all, the House of Representatives here in NH recieve a stipend of $100 and travel mileage.  Period.  There are still some things here in NH that allow me to state that we are a "frugal" state (the word is actually in our Constitution) but I have to wonder how much that will last given the Dems have taken over (and in their first budget owning the House, the Senate, the Executive Council, the Governorship, is up 17%). 

Anyways, what I really wanted to talk about was this that I saw over at DefenseTech:

Well, this brand spanking new $70 million C-40 (just came as a Thanksgiving - early Christmas present - either to the Air Force that has to maintain / fly it, or to the Congress, who will use it for their junkets.

With exquisite timing, Boeing chooses a travel weekend that could go down in the annals of airborne horror to deliver a top-of-the-line Boeing Business Jet that will be assigned to Congress -- those folks who have charged billions in air travel taxes over the decades and left us with 1930s blind-landing technology. The jet took off from Seattle this morning for its base at Scott AFB in Illinois.

The C-40C, jam-packed with 40 seats by luxury-jet specialists at Greenpoint Technologies, is the third and last of a batch ordered in 2005. They will be operated by the USAF reserve to carry Congressional delegations around the world.

I've done more than my share of riding on "Guppies" - I can tell you beyond the shadow of a doubt that I have NEVER had the chance to ride in a 737 (the civilian version of the C-40) that had just 40 seats ("normal specs" here): 

Continue reading "Look what they keep voting for themselves" »

Posted by Skip at 12:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

University of Delaware - degrees in indoctrination? 

While this story came out last week and may be one of the most egregious of the bunch, it really bears watching. This is not an isolated instance by any stretch of the imagination - at a lot of campuses, political correctness seems to overrun sanity.  And in this case, common sense...

While the professors themselves may disagree, the Academy (our institutes of higher learning) lean left.  It has been shown in multiple studies that the professors are more often Democrats than Republicans in large (sometimes overwhelming) percentages - just like a lot of MSM newsrooms.  Often, entire departments will contribute to liberal causes (and politicians) to the almost total exclusion of conservative issues (and politicians).

And while I'd rather see a more equitable split, that's their problem, not mine.  But after reading this, perhaps it is a problem for all of us: Left and Right.

And it has turned into a problem.  It is has been seen that the radical, liberal groupthink that has overtaken our colleges and universities is threatening the free exchange of ideas and views - the whole raison d'etre for its existence.  In other words, while there is much talk of freedom in the theoretical, in reality, political correctness rules the day.  Unless one talks the talk decreed by that groupthink, you are in deep sneakers.

Examples: 

Have a great GPA but disagree that corporal punishment is not necessarily wrong?  Get thrown out of school:

SYRACUSE, N.Y., January 19, 2006—A New York appeals court has determined that Le Moyne College wrongly removed graduate student Scott McConnell from its education program for endorsing corporal punishment in class.  The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) first brought McConnell’s case to public attention last year.

Continue reading "The Academy - its dirty laundry keeps spilling out" »

Posted by Skip at 8:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Growing up, I hated the Knicks.  Why?  They were always trying to beat my beloved (at least back then during the dynasty of Kevin, Larry, and Robert) Celts.  Given that my ardor for the once unbeatable (now hapless) team has cooled, there may be another reason?  And yes, I've made the language kid / filter friendly.

From the NY Daily News:

Isiah Explains double standard on slurs in Garden trial

Jurors heard the Knicks coach say he wouldn't stand for a white man calling a black woman a "b***h" - but wouldn't be as angry if the same words came from the mouth of a black man.

In a videotaped deposition played for the jury at fired Knicks exec Anucha Browne Sanders' sexual harassment trial, Thomas said he drew a distinction between whites and blacks when it came to the B-word.

Asked if he was bothered by a black man calling a black female "b***h," Thomas said: "Not as much. I'm sorry to say, I do make a distinction.

"A white male calling a black female a b***his highly offensive," Thomas said. "That would have violated my code of conduct."

"Maybe I shouldn't go there. ... A white male calling a black female, that is wrong with me. I'm not taking that. I'm not accepting that. ... That's a problem for me."

And then you wonder why I get so sick and tired of political correctness.  Frankly, isn't this just another form of blatant racism - the color of one's skin determines what one can say without landing in PC jail?

'Nuff said on this. 

Thomas was asked if he would have disciplined Marbury if he had found out he called Browne Sanders a "black b***h." Thomas said, "As best I could, yes."

Yup, strong leadership...the operative phrase contains: asylum, inmates, running,

Posted by Skip at 8:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

We have a local paper, the Laconia Daily Sun, that runs a column of a local professor that, to put it mildly, with whom we disagree - a lot!  Short version: a Peace and Justice kind of guy, speaks poorly  about religion and national pride of any type (champions for a one world government via the UN), he advocates lots of talk and non-violence to solve ALL problems.  Violence is so passe; war is just so uncivilized.

Sure thing, dude.  'Splain this one (emphasis mine):

He’s made good will gestures. He’s made concessions.

He’s reached out.

But the jihadis keep slaughtering people indiscriminately.

What’s a military-installed prime minister to do?

BANGKOK (AFP) - Thai Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont said Wednesday that separatists fighting in Muslim-majority provinces have refused to take up his offer to launch peace talks.

Check one - Let's talk! 

“As of now, there has been no progress on starting negotiations, because that would require the agreement of both sides. So there are no talks for now,” he told reporters.

“My government is still adhering a policy of non-violence, but cooperation from the people is crucial,” he said.

Check two - non-violence! 

Since Surayud took office following a military coup last year, he has made a series of peace gestures to the militants fighting along the southern border with Malaysia.

Check three - keep trying! 

But the violence has only escalated since the coup, and the government has deployed thousands more troops and paramilitary forces to the region.

Go figure.

(Hat tip: Jihad Watch.)

MY hat tip to Little Green Footballs! 

Background:  the Thai military overthrew the civilian government a while ago as it became alarmed / frustrated over the continued violence and that government's inability to bring peace to the southern region of Thailand as radical Islamofascists continued attacking unarmed Buddhists and Christians.  They installed a new Prime Minister who was supposed to "fix" the problem.

The above is probably a model for what these peace centers are pushing for with the PM trying to act 

As one can tell...

Continue reading "See what happens when you try what the Peace Centers advocate?" »

Posted by Skip at 8:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Well, about the only thing I can add to this is that I hope you join me in calling Hillary my newly invented name for her: Chillery!

And, "The truth will set you free" (Good Bible Verse, huh?) and I'd like to add: set you free of the democrats!

"Subject: WAYS TO BE A GOOD DEMOCRAT

1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.

2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than U.S. Nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists.

4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.

5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical documented changes in the earth's climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUV's.

6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual is natural.

7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.

8. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach fourth graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.

10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make The Passion of the Christ for financial gain only.

12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.

Continue reading "Ways To Be A Good Democrat!" »

Posted by Judy at 3:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBacks (0)

From the San Francisco Chronicle 

San Francisco's already tough laws on firearms will get even stronger -- becoming some of the most restrictive in the country -- after a vote at City Hall Tuesday....

They don't like the military (one supervisor believes that all the country need to defends itself is the Coast Guard and police), they don't like the Blue Angels, they don't like....well, you get the idea.

Being one of the most (if not THE most) liberal cities in the country, they certainly don't like guns - they're eeevvviiillll.  Hey, ban the guns and crime will go away.  Restrict peoples rights to own or carry guns should work, right?

Er... 

...But even new restrictions won't do much to stop the gun violence escalating on city streets, one sponsor of the new laws said after the vote.

The violence that has been generally confined to more crime-plagued neighborhoods crossed into a major tourist area Monday afternoon, with a shooting that left one person dead and put bullet holes through the front window of a popular restaurant.

Gun-related homicides, injuries from shootings, and gun crimes in and around schools are becoming increasingly common, according to the Mayor's Office of Criminal Justice.

Well, THAT notion seems to be working real well - in proving that old saw of "if you make owning a gun a crime, then only criminals will have guns"...

Yes, the come back is "well, the guns are coming from outside the city!".  Well, of course.  But look what has happened in Britain....restrict guns and they'll use something else.  And yes, Britain now has a terrific problem - knives have replaced guns.

The laws -- which gained final approval from the Board of Supervisors -- would restrict both the sale and possession of firearms.

Specifically, they would prohibit the possession or sale of firearms on city property, require firearms in residences to be in a locked container or have trigger locks and require firearm dealers to submit an inventory to the chief of police every six months.

The last provision is intended to allow city officials to know how many guns are sold, though there is only one gun shop in the city.

Please answer me one question - if it isn't helping to combat crime, if the restrictions that have been passed have effectively done nothing....why?

Despite the laws, however, Mirkarimi said he doubts they will quell the kind of violence that erupted on Monday afternoon, which police suspect may be tied to a feud between a San Francisco gang and an East Bay gang.

"Nobody should be surprised about the migration and proliferation of gun violence in San Francisco," Mirkarimi said. "We've been saying this for two-and-a-half years, that the murders, homicides and gun violence that have been occurring in the more routine areas ... have now migrated into other areas."

Sure thing!  No deterrence (gee, someone else might have a weapon to use on me as I rob or assault them!) only emboldens some.  Add to that the fact that they are a sanctuary city and the police are hamstrung with politically correct regulations, what would you expect?

Voters passed the proposition with 58 percent in favor, but it is tied up in court after the National Rifle Association challenged its constitutionality. Newsom said the vote amounted to a "public opinion poll."

Conservative - a liberal that got mugged....if they survive.

Posted by Skip at 8:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

So often I hear from the big name journalists that "we report the truth and only the truth".  That only a journalism degree and years of experience can allow one to objectively report on the goings on in the world.

Balderdash.  At the same time that they rail against citizen journalists and bloggers for our lack of the above, at least most bloggers readily admit their biases right up front instead of insisting that they are perfectly objective - unlike many journalists - like these! 

I am actually very surprised that journalists would investigate other journalists this way - telling secrets out of school?  I'm sorta glad that journalists are finally coming under the same microscope that they have applied to others - and I bet they don't like it!

See the list after the jump.

Add to it this story that outlines how the MSM forms a "template" and uses it to shape national opinion on certain topics - that is called lobbying and not what I consider "news".

Journalism: Last fall, when the jobless rate hit a five-year low of 4.4%, Vice President Cheney was asked by ABC's George Stephanopolous why the administration didn't get more credit for it. "Well," said Cheney, "you guys don't help."

So much for the understatement of 2006. Cheney, of course, was referring to the now-obvious fact that even when there's good news about the economy, it's played down — or turned upside down — by the mainstream media.

Coverage of that unemployment report, coming just before the congressional elections, was just one of many cases in point, as the Media Research Center (MRC) pointed out at the time.

ABC reported on the "exceptionally low" rate, as Stephanopolous described it — albeit 19 minutes into its evening newscast. But "CBS, and NBC to a lesser extent, spun the good news into bad," MRC observed. "Though wages had grown by 3.9% over the (previous) 12 months, CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric used the lower unemployment news as a segue to ask: 'But do the jobs out there pay enough? A big issue in the battle for Congress this year is how much the lowest-paid workers make.'

"Viewers then saw a full story on the plight of minimum wage workers and how raising it is 'resonating' with voters."

No wonder, said MRC, that an ABC News/Washington Post poll taken just before the election found more than half of Americans (53%) thought the economy was "not so good" or "poor."

Objective, huh?  Straight up the middle, eh? 

There are good, honest reporters out there (we are blessed with a few here in central NH!).  Wish it were so other places. 

Details for the political donations:

Television:

(D) ABC News, Mary Fulginiti, "Primetime" correspondent, Hollywood, Calif., $500 to Gov. Bill Richardson, Democratic presidential candidate, 2007. Before she joined ABC in November 2006, lawyer Fulginiti gave $6,000 to Democratic candidates.

ABC forbids political activity by journalists.

"A friend asked me to contribute" to Richardson, Fulginiti said. "This is not a reflection of my political views. Look, I've made a mistake here. I'm a legal analyst — this is all new to me. I have been politically active in the past. This is when I was just starting out at ABC. I was still thinking as a lawyer."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) ABC affiliate in Boston, WCVB, Sangita Chandra, producer, $250 to House candidate Jamie Wall, Democrat, Wisconsin, in April 2005.

Chandra is a producer for the nightly newsmagazine "Chronicle" and news and feature programs. She said she gave to the candidate in Wisconsin because of a personal connection. "He's one of my best friends. He's the only candidate I've donated to."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) ABC affiliate in Wichita, Susan Peters, anchor, $600 to America Coming Together in two donations in 2004 and 2005. She anchors the news at 5, 6 and 10 p.m. America Coming Together funded get-out-the-vote drives to defeat President Bush in 2004.

Peters didn't return calls.

KAKE news director David Grant said, "To be honest, I don't have an answer for you. Can I get back to you?" He didn't call back.

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) CBS News, Serena Altschul, contributing correspondent for "CBS Sunday Morning," $5,000 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in October 2004. She was a correspondent for CBS from 2003 to 2006.

A CBS spokeswoman said Altschul "did some checking with family members, and the contribution was in fact made in her name."

A year after this donation, CBS tightened its policy to forbid all political activity.

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) CBS News, producer, Edward H. Forgotson Jr., "CBS Sunday Morning," $1,000 in June 2006 to Patrick J. Kennedy, Democrat, the Rhode Island congressman and son of Sen. Ted Kennedy. The donation was made two weeks after Kennedy pleaded guilty to driving under the influence of prescription drugs in an accident on Capitol Hill.

A CBS spokesman said the network's policy was tightened in September 2006 to forbid contributions to political campaigns. Previously, there was a bit of wiggle room.

"My donation pre-dates the clarification of CBS News policy," Forgotson said. "I've made no contributions to any candidate or party since."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) CBS affiliate in Boston, WBZ, Liz Walker, newsmagazine host, $1,000 to Women Senate 2006, which gave to Democratic candidates, in December 2005; $2,500 to Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton in January 2005; $250 to Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow in Michigan in March 2006; and $250 to Sen. Maria Cantwell, Washington Democrat, in March 2006.

Walker did not return a phone call, but WBZ spokeswoman Ro Dooley Webster said that Walker was not in the news department when she made those contributions, though she has since returned to a news department role. Walker had been the station's anchor for 20 years but left in January 2005 to become host of the station's community affairs and opinion show. She made the contributions in 2005 and 2006, before returning to a news role, doing pieces for the newscast.

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) CBS affiliate in Los Angeles, KCBS, Claudia Bill, news writer, $250 to Democrat John Edwards in March 2007, and $500 to Democratic candidate Lois Capps in a House race in October 2003.

"I'm a news writer. I write copy for the anchors," Bill said. "What's written by the news writers is copy edited several times. I haven't covered any politics at all in this particular race. I made a donation as a private citizen, not as a member of CBS. If I were, say, Katy Couric, then you may have a different picture." She said she wasn't aware that CBS policy now forbids donations.

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) CBS affiliate in Memphis, WREG, Markova Reed, anchor of morning and noon news, $250 to Ed Stanton, a Democratic House candidate from Memphis, in January 2006.

Reed did not return calls. WREG's president and general manager, Ronald A. Walter, said, "Yes, we do restrict employees, journalists particularly, from engaging in political activity. We don't want people doing that. We feel that in this particular case it was an innocent mistake on her part, and we have handled it internally."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) CNN, Guy Raz, Jerusalem correspondent, now with NPR as defense correspondent, $500 to John Kerry in June 2004.

Raz donated to Kerry the same month he was embedded in Iraq with U.S. troops for CNN. He also covered reaction to Abu Ghraib and President Bush's policies in the Middle East. In 2006, he returned to NPR, and covers the Pentagon.

"Yes, I made the donation," Raz said in an e-mail. "At the time, I was a reporter with CNN International based out of London. I covered international news and European Union stories. I did not cover US news or politics."

Both CNN and NPR prohibit political activity by all journalists, no matter their assignment.

Click to return to the list.

-----

(R) CW affiliate in Chicago, WGN, Jay Congdon, news producer, $500 to Republican senatorial candidate Cynthia Thielen of Hawaii in October 2006.

Congdon did not return phone calls. The station's management would only confirm that he is employed.

Click to return to the list.

-----

(R) CW affiliate in Los Angeles, KTLA, Diana Chi, news writer, 19 contributions totaling $8,025 to the Republican National Committee from 2002 through 2006.

Chi did not return phone calls. Nor did the news director, Jeff Wald.

Click to return to the list.

-----

(R) Fox News Channel, Ann Stewart Banker, producer for Bill O'Reilly's "The O'Reilly Factor," $5,000 in June 2006 to Volunteer PAC, which gave to Republican candidates. Her father was once a campaign treasurer for former Republican Sen. Bill Frist of Tennessee.

Banker didn't return calls. A Fox News spokesman said donations are allowed.

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) Fox News Channel, Codie Brooks, researcher for Brit Hume's "Special Report," $300 to Senate campaign of Harold Ford Jr., Tennessee Democrat, in March 2006, $200 more  in June, and $2,100 more in September.

Brooks, who said her family is friendly with Ford's, said she raised much of the $2,600 from friends — it wasn't her money alone. "A lot of Fox employees have contributed to Democratic candidates. I know I'm not the only one."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) Fox affiliate in Omaha, KPTM, Calvert Collins, reporter, $500 in October 2006 to Jim Esch, Democratic House candidate from Omaha. Esch lost to the Republican incumbent in November.

Collins says that her father made the campaign contribution. "I had told my dad that I was friends with this man. He said, 'Would you like me to make a donation?' I said, 'That's up to you, but don't do it in my name.'" She said her father also made a $2,000 contribution in her name to Kay Granger, Republican, Texas, in 2004, when Collins was a student in broadcast journalism at the University of Missouri-Columbia.

Collins also posted a photo of herself with the candidate on her Facebook page, with the note, "Vote for him Tuesday, Nov. 7!" After the photo was posted on a blog about Nebraska politics, a public Web site, she posted a reply:

"I would like to take a moment to set the record straight, Jim and I are friends, and nothing more. It is part of my job to build rapport with candidates and incumbents during election season. I have many friends in other campaigns... It is also important to note, I have NEVER covered the 2nd District Congressional Race, and have no plans to do so in the coming week.

"To those of you who have been offended by this incident, I apologize. My relationships with politicians have not and will not affect my reporting. I appreciate your understanding."

She told MSNBC.com, "I covered more politics than any of our reporters. I try to establish good relationships with both sides, so they would call our station. A lot of the political PR people are former reporters, so they have allegiance to one candidate or another."

The photo was taken at a cancer fundraiser, she said. "We have a lot of mutual friends." She said she posted it on her Facebook page where only her friends could see it. "I foolishly wrote, in jest, to vote for him, and forgot completely that that was on there. When my boss heard about it, I immediately removed it. Press people of opponents called it to attention."

"The irony is, if anyone had really done their research, I was a registered Republican. I have now changed to being an Independent, and I will stay that way my entire career. I learned a lot from this experience that I will never repeat. In a way, I'm glad this happened to me at age 23, and not 33, and I will learn from it."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) Fox affiliate in Minneapolis, KMSP, Alix Kendall, morning anchor, $250 in September 2006 to Midwest Values PAC, which gave to Democratic candidates.

Kendall said she opposes the war and thought that her donation was anonymous.

"I also believe that the station doesn't own my political views and values. Did I make the contribution? I did. We all have political opinions in this business. A lot of us want to be politically active. But marching in a war protest isn't an option, being a recognizable person, so we give with our checkbook. I don't think that working for a news organization I give up my rights. I interview plenty of people that I don't agree with, but I also ask questions to get the other side. I think it's actually an advantage — in a news organization we have people of many political views. We have healthy debates. I think it's my civic duty to be involved in what matters to me. I think it's ridiculous that anyone who's sitting in front of a camera doesn't have an opinion — come on, we all do. Did I think about that at the time? No, I didn't. Maybe I should have. But I still feel I have a right to my civic duties."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) Fox affiliate in Washington, D.C., WTTG, Laura Evans, anchor, $500 in August 2006 to John Sarbanes, Democratic House candidate in Maryland. Evans anchors the 5 p.m. news. She is listed in FEC records by her married name, Laura Manatos.

On her blog on the station's Web site she commented recently on the Iraq war: " Everyone's trying to save face here ... all the while people are dying. Didn't voters in November speak loud and clear, saying they're tired of the fighting and want an end in sight?"

When first contacted by MSNBC.com, Evans said her husband, lobbyist Mike Manatos, "actually made the contribution, and the check was written on our account."

But the records show that her husband had already given the legal limit to Sarbanes. He couldn't legally contribute more. When asked about those records, she said, "I hadn't talked to my husband. He reminded me that he had actually talked to me about this, because he had maxed out, could we write a check in my name. I said, 'Sure.' Now I remember having this conversation. It's within Fox policy, it was OK for me to do it."

Fox does allow news employees to make political contributions.

Click to return to the list.

-----

(R) MSNBC, Joe Scarborough, host of the "Morning Joe" talk show and the evening newscast "Scarborough Country," $4,200 in March 2006 to Derrick Kitts, Republican candidate for the House from Oregon. Scarborough was a Republican member of Congress from Florida from 1995 to 2001. He also provides political commentary for MSNBC, CNBC and NBC's "Today Show."

MSNBC policy requires journalists to report any potential conflict of interest and to seek approval from the president of NBC News before making any political contribution.

A spokesperson for NBC, Jeremy Gaines, replied to questions sent to Scarborough. "Yes, he did make a donation to Derrick Kitts. Kitts is an old friend of Joe's. Joe hosts an opinion program and is not a news reporter."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) MTV News, Gideon Yago, "Choose or Lose" presidential correspondent, $200 to Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark in January 2004; $500 to America Coming Together, which campaigned against President Bush, in September 2004; $250 to the Democratic National Committee in September 2004; $250 to VoteVets, which is running ads against the president's handling of the war, in March 2006, and $250 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in October 2006. He said he is no longer at MTV News.

Gideon Yago, raw:

"I don't understand. Things that I do as a private citizen?

"We're not a traditional news network in the sense of NBC or Fox or CBS.

"We're sensitive about equal time or fairness. We're non-biased.

"I mean, what the f---, man?

"I came back from doing coverage in Iraq and was very moved by what I saw. I was never told by my boss or anyone that we couldn't give to a campaign.

"I'm not a journalist now. Writing fiction.

"I would never qualify what we do as journalism. Ninety percent of what we did was simple identification, after 9/11: Who is Rumsfeld? Who is Colin Powell? Who is Al Qaeda?

"I try to call it as you see it.

"After my second trip to Iraq in 2004, I felt the conventional news media was not doing a good enough job of conveying the horrors and the failures of the war in Iraq.

"At 18 I was a registered Republican. At 24, I was a registered Democrat.

"I tried very hard — our job was not an indoctrination process — I tried to be as professional as possible whenever possible.

"We were a non-traditional news outlet. We were nonpartisan.

""OK, I've been rebuked. Thank you for spanking me in public.

"Do you hand in all your rights as a public citizen when you do this?

"I mean — who's your editor? I'm going to call him right now."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) NBC News, Victoria Corderi, "Dateline" correspondent, $250 in December 2005 to Democrat Josh Rales, who ran for Sen. Paul Sarbanes' open seat in Maryland. Rales finished a distant third in the primary. Corderi is listed in the FEC records by her married name, Keane.

"In a word, 'Yikes!'" Corderi said in an e-mail. "Josh Rales is a longtime neighbor and acquaintance. A good friend of mine gave him a cocktail party last year, a sort of 'meet and greet.' My husband and I went to be nice, knowing full well Josh was tilting at windmills with his candidacy. Later, my husband (who is a dyed-in-the-wool Republican, by the way) told me he'd written a check for a nominal amount so our friend would have something to show for the night. I'd not even thought to consider that since my name is on our checks that I would appear in public records as a contributor. I have a policy of not contributing to campaigns and not showing public support for candidates. This was a lapse that you brought to my attention."

The NBC policy does not outright allow or forbid donations but requires approval of the president of NBC News.

Click to return to the list.

-----

(R) PBS affiliate in New York, Thirteen/WNET, Rafael Roman, host of "New York Voices," $250 to President Bush in July 2004, and $300 to Republican Sen. John Thune of South Dakota the same month.

"I wouldn't do it again, quite frankly," said Roman, a former news anchor for WNET. "At that time it seemed to me that it wasn't part of a story that I was covering in the future. I would say, now, no. Even if you're not covering something, you might at some point. Citizenship is an important responsibility that's not taken away by the job you do, but I wouldn't do it again."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) Independent station KTVK, Phoenix, Steve Bodinet, reporter, $400 to John Kerry in May 2004.

Bodinet did not reply to messages.

Click to return to the list.

Click for related content

Read the story: Journalists dole out cash to politicians (quietly) Live Vote: Should journalists give? Compare the policies of news organizations Message board: Weigh in on journalists and politics

Online:

(D) MSNBC.com, Rachel Schwanewede, senior editor, TodayShow.com, $461.30 to America Coming Together in October 2004. She was among the more than 20 journalists who bought tickets to the "Vote for Change" series of concerts to raise money to defeat President Bush in 2004. MSNBC.com is not naming the others, but in the interest of transparency we are naming our own.

Schwanewede said she purchased the tickets for her husband's birthday for a Springsteen concert.

"There's no intention of mine to donate to any political campaign."

MSNBC.com policy requires permission of the editor in chief for any political activity.

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) MSNBC.com, Joel Widzer, travel columnist, $2,000 to Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson in February 2007.  Widzer actually is an employee of MSNBC.com partner Tripso.com, though the FEC record lists his employer as MSNBC.com.

Widzer said that he actually gave $1,000. The FEC records show two separate entries of $1,000 on the same day.

"I'm actually a Republican — one of the few Republicans who still support George Bush and think he's doing OK with the war effort," Widzer said. "One of my friends works for Bill Richardson and asked me to give to the campaign. She knew me from MSNBC, so she listed that."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) Salon.com, Gary Kamiya, writer at large and former executive editor, $250 to MoveOn.org, which opposed President Bush, in September 2004.

Kamiya, who now writes a column for Salon, was executive editor when he made the donation. In his column he has urged the impeachment of President Bush, whom he calls "a historic disaster."

Kamiya did not reply to messages. The editor of Salon, Joan Walsh, said he is traveling.

This week, after MSNBC.com called, Salon.com decided to forbid political donations by all editorial staff.

"Salon hasn't had an explicit policy, but the growing importance and credibility of our political coverage convinced us that we needed one," Walsh said in an e-mail. We've told all editorial staff not to donate to candidates, campaigns, parties or groups that give money to candidates, campaigns or parties. We're including all edit staffers because we like to move people around, and come election time, most people contribute to campaign coverage."

The policy went into effect this week, Walsh said, but the editors "have been talking about it for a while."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) Salon.com, Katharine Mieszkowski, reporter, $400 in April 2007 to EMILY's List, which gives to Democratic candidates who support abortion rights. Also gave $200 in June 2003 to EMILY's List.

Mieszkowski writes mostly about technology, science and the environment. She has also written on explicitly political topics, including John Kerry, Al Gore, voting machines, Texas textbooks, President Bush's response to Hurricane Katrina, school vouchers and peace movements.

See the previous entry for Salon's new policy.

Click to return to the list.

-----

Magazines:

(D) The Atlantic Monthly, Martha Spaulding, assistant managing editor, $500 to the Democratic National Committee in May 2004.

No longer at The Atlantic, Spaulding said, "It's certainly not the Atlantic's contribution." She said she was not aware that contributions were disclosed on the Internet with a donor's occupation and employer. And she said she didn't understand how any company could forbid political activity by its employees.

The magazine said a tougher policy may be coming.

"Historically, we have not had a formal policy," said spokeswoman Amy Thompson, "and as an institution, The Atlantic is part of ‘no party or clique,’ as our founders put it. Even though we have not implemented an officially codified policy, Atlantic editorial staffers are discouraged from supporting political campaigns.

"We're discussing this issue, and may in fact move toward a formal prohibition on political donations by editorial staffers. Of course, we have always policed any conflicts-of-interest on the part of writers and editors working on political stories."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) Business Week, Prudence Crowther, chief copy editor, $200 to John Kerry in April 2004, and another $200 that July.

Crowther said she doesn't think of herself as a newsperson. "I'm not a journalist, so I can't help you. I did obviously contribute to the Kerry campaign."

Business Week policy allows donations for most staff. "Our Code of Journalistic Ethics requires journalists to disclose any potential conflicts of interest and to recuse themselves from stories if a conflict could occur," said spokeswoman Patti Straus. "As a business publication, we don't prohibit campaign contributions."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) The Economist, Andreas Kluth, technology correspondent, $500 to John Kerry in May 2004. He is based in San Francisco, covering Silicon Valley.

"In my case, just to be clear, I told the editors about it, and I don't even cover politics," Kluth said in an e-mail. "That said, I do think that journalists can write perfectly fair and balanced pieces as professionals and simultaneously have private opinions, vote, donate, etc. Conflicts of interest such as shareholdings (where press coverage could be seen to lead to personal profit) are delicate, so in all these cases, disclosure seems appropriate. At The Economist we regularly disclose all investments."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) The Economist, Joanne Ramos, financial writer, a total of $2,100 in September and December 2005 to Matt Brown, the former Rhode Island secretary of state, a Democrat who ran for the Senate before dropping out amid a fundraising controversy. Ramos has written about banking, corporate pension reform, auditor concentration, the hedge-fund sector, Iraq’s banking system and international accounting standards.

"I'm a finance writer. I don't write about politics," Ramos said. "I'm not sure what the policy is."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(R) Forbes, Jean A. Briggs, assistant managing editor, donations to the Republican National Committee of $250 in March 2007, $250 in December 2005, $250 in February 2004, $250 in February 2003, $250 in March 2002, $250 in February 2001 and $250 in August 2000; as well as $250 to Rick Lazio, House candidate, Republican, in August 2000.

"I don't make campaign contributions," Briggs said. "I'm the assistant managing editor of Forbes magazine. I don't make campaign contributions."

When the contributions were described, she said, "You call that a campaign contribution? It's not putting money into anyone's campaign."

(The Republican National Committee put $25 million into the Bush-Cheney campaign in 2004.)

When asked whether she made these contributions, Briggs said, "I don't believe I have to answer that question. Goodbye. Thank you for your call." And she hung up the phone.

In a follow-up e-mail, Briggs complained that MSNBC.com had not formally requested an interview before calling to ask questions.

Forbes policy allows campaign contributions. Says Monie Begley Feurey, senior vice president, corporate communications: "Forbes has no policy regarding employees' personal contributions to political parties or candidates, but it does encourage any employee to be involved in their communities in any way they choose."

Briggs is also listed as a board member by PERC, the Property and Environment Research Center, which advocates "market solutions to environmental problems." PERC has received funding from ExxonMobil and other oil companies. The organization's Web site says, "She exposes fellow New York journalists to PERC ideas and also brings a journalistic perspective to PERC's board. As a board member, she seeks to help spread the word about PERC's thorough research and fresh ideas."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(R) Forbes, Robert Lenzner, national editor, $1,500 to Kathleen Troia McFarland, House candidate, Republican, in November 2005.

"As a rule, I don't make any political contributions," Lenzner said. "That was before the campaign that started. I never made any other contributions. It was merely a social, personal thing. I do not write about politics. Her husband is a friend of mine. It was contributed on the spur of the moment. I did not make it as a member of Forbes magazine. I don't believe it's a violation of any policy of Forbes magazine."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) Forbes, Tatiana Serafin, senior reporter, $202 to John Kerry in April 2004. She covers billionaires, retailing and other topics.

"I don't feel comfortable talking about my politics," Serafin said. "I'd prefer not to answer questions."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) Inc., Jane Berentson, editor, $1,000 to the Democratic National Committee in April 2004.  Berentson is the senior editor at the magazine.

"Inc. has no prohibition against campaign contributions," she said in an e-mail.

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) The New Yorker, David Denby, film critic, $1,000 to John Kerry in March 2004, and $250 more in May 2004.

He writes reviews and capsule summaries of films, including Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" (an "epochal documentary"), Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" ("slipshod intellectually"), and "An Unreasonable Man," a documentary on Ralph Nader, whom he apparently hasn't forgiven for getting in the way of the Gore and Kerry presidencies ("a thoughtless man who believes only in himself.")

Denby did not reply to messages.

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) The New Yorker, Henry Finder, editorial director and books editor, $250 to John Kerry in June 2004.

New Yorker policy allows donations.

"It's an interesting question," Finder said. On the one hand, he said, it's not convincing to think that by abstaining from making a donation, a journalist is "preserving some kind of equilibrium in my head where I don't have opinions. You can't will yourself to be indifferent between chocolate and vanilla.

"If people give, it's in the public realm. How do you justify opacity as somehow making journalism better, to say, we need to preserve an appearance of indifference. That's something like misrepresentation, a dubious form of disguise."

Though he said he could see the "prudential argument," that as an editor you wouldn't want to feed the public perception of bias, he expressed faith in "ordinary reportorial professionalism, that whoever the reporter, they're not writing a piece that will make the world better, in their view, but they're writing the piece that is the piece."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) The New Yorker, Tad Friend, Hollywood reporter, $500 to John Kerry in May 2004. Friend is the author of "Lost in Mongolia: Travels in Hollywood and Other Foreign Lands."

Friend did not reply to messages.

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) The New Yorker, Ann Goldstein, head of the copy department, $500 to MoveOn.org in October 2006.

"That's just me as a private citizen," Goldstein said. As for what the New Yorker's policy might be, she said she hadn't considered it. "I've never thought of myself as working for a news organization."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) The New Yorker, Hendrik Hertzberg, senior editor, $2,000 to John Kerry in three payments in 2004. Hertzberg often writes the Comment in the front of the magazine, and was a speechwriter for Jimmy Carter.

Hertzberg, in answer to the question whether he made these donations, sent this reply: "Damn right."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) The New Yorker, John Lahr, theater critic, $200 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in June 2006, $250 to the Democratic National Committee in September 2004, and $500 to John Kerry in March 2004.

Sometimes Lahr works an anti-Bush quip into his work. (Such as, to the president, "thinking is a fuse that has to be blown in order for him to do what he wants to do.")

"The whole point about criticism is to stimulate debate," Lahr said. "My biases are transparent, because I express them. One of the implications of your question is that people have no integrity — that people wouldn't be fair.

"What would you have me write? It would be hard to find a sentient person who could take a strong position for what the Republicans have done in the past six years. What are you going to do, take a position for their position on global warming or the war in Iraq? C'mon!

"This is a Puritan folderol. If you scratch farther into the people who make these rules, say at The New York Times, they're all in somebody's pocket."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) The New Yorker, Janet Malcolm, writer, 17 donations for $6,700 since 2003 to Democratic campaigns and PACs, including EMILY's List and the Democratic National Committee.

Malcolm did not return phone calls.

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) The New Yorker, George Packer, the prize-winning war correspondent for the magazine since 2003 and author of the 2005 book "The Assassins' Gate: America in Iraq," $750 to the Democratic National Committee in August 2004, and $250 in July 2005 to Iraq War veteran Paul Hackett, a Democrat who campaigned against the war and for a seat in Congress in Ohio.

"Journalists don't give up their rights as citizens. They can and should vote; they can and should support candidates," Packer said in an e-mail.

"My readers know my views on politics and politicians because I make no secret of them in my comments for The New Yorker and elsewhere. If giving money to a politician prejudiced my ability to think and write honestly, I wouldn't do it. Fortunately, it doesn't."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) The New Yorker, Mark Singer, profile writer, $250 in April 2004 to Victory Campaign 2004, which supported America Coming Together, which opposed President Bush. In January 2004, he had written the magazine's profile of Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean.

"I will tell you the truth. I am not a political writer," Singer said. "I got a call in the summer of 2003 from David Remnick because Nick Lemann was going to run the journalism school at Columbia, and he needed someone to cover the Dean campaign. And I tried to avoid doing it, because I don't believe fundamentally in the process by which we elect presidents — obviously it's an insane process. And I had a son who was working in the Dean campaign — he was 17, up in Burlington. It was a conflict of interest. I disclosed in the piece that my son was working for the campaign."

As for the donation, "I knew I was never going to write another political piece in my life. There was a decent interval, or an indecent interval, after the article. I must have rationalized that a get-out-the-vote campaign, there was some distinction — but now that I'm talking to you, I see that there's not a distinction. Obviously I'm a Democrat. I understand the nature of the question you're asking — but it's much easier to influence the outcome of a political election by writing about it than it is by making a contribution.

"I believe very much that writers have to be aware of conflicts of interest in all sorts of situations. Probably there should be a rule against it. But there's a rule against murder. If someone had murdered Hitler — a journalist interviewing him had murdered him — the world would be a better place. I only feel good, as a citizen, about getting rid of George Bush, who has been the most destructive president in my lifetime. I certainly don't regret it."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) The New Yorker, Judith Thurman, writer, $1,000 to the Democratic National Committee in October 2004. Thurman, who normally writes about books, art and fashion, wrote the magazine's profile of Teresa Heinz Kerry, published on Sept. 27, 2004. Her donation to the Democratic National Committee was recorded on Oct. 7.

Reached at home, Thurman said, "Let me get back to you." She did not call back.

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) Newsweek, Temma Ehrenfeld, associate editor, $1,000 in June 2006 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. She has been a reporter for Newsweek columnist Jane Bryant Quinn and does her own reporting on science and health topics.

"I don't do political coverage here," Ehrenfeld said. "I report for Jane Bryant Quinn's finance coverage. We write about topics like health insurance, so sometimes we write about legislation. I do write some of my own stories, not political."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D & R) Newsweek, Jane Bryant Quinn, personal finance columnist, $1,000 to Judy Aydelott, a Democrat who ran for Congress in New York. Previously gave $2,800 in four donations to a Republican, former Rep. Sue Kelly of New York.

"In my case, I gave to dear friends," Quinn said. "They came to me, and I gave. And I gave to both Republicans and Democrats."

A Newsweek spokeswoman described a policy with some room, particularly for freelancers like Quinn.

"We have an expectation that Newsweek journalists will not make any contributions to political campaigns," said Jan Angilella. "Are there exceptions to this general expectation? Yes. Depending on the particular circumstances, including an employee's or freelancer's specific role or responsibility."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) Newsweek, Anne Underwood, correspondent on health and medical stories, $1,000 to John Kerry in March 2004. The donation is listed under her married name, Enslow.

"I really don't want to participate in this," Underwood said, hanging up the phone.

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) Rolling Stone, Jason Fine, deputy managing editor, $280 to the Democratic National Committee in September 2004.

Fine did not reply to messages.

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) Rolling Stone, David Swanson, assistant editor, $202 to John Kerry in March 2004.

Swanson did not reply to messages. He is now at the company's Men's Journal.

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) Rolling Stone, Jann Wenner, editor and publisher, $25,000 to the Democratic National Committee in 2006; $20,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in 2006; $10,000 to the Democratic National Committee in 2004; $5,000 to committees supporting Bob Casey, a Democrat elected to the Senate from Pennsylvania in 2006; $1,250 to Democracy for America, Democrat Howard Dean's PAC, in 2004; $1,008 to America Coming Together, which opposed President Bush, in 2004; and $500 to Democratic Senate candidate Ned Lamont in Connecticut in 2006.

Although known for music coverage, Rolling Stone covers politics, too. And editor/publisher Wenner is still very much involved in editing the magazine, said publicity director Beth Jacobson.

"We encourage our editors to be active participants in the democratic process," Jacobson said. "We don't operate like a newspaper. We're a magazine with a point of view, and it's clear we have that point of view. People go to Rolling Stone — they know what they're going to get."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) Time, Jim Frederick, senior editor, $500 to the Vermont Democratic Party in October 2006.

"At the time I made that donation, I was Time’s Tokyo Bureau Chief. I am currently a senior editor at Time’s European edition, based in London," Frederick said in an e-mail.

Time's policy says, "Employees are free to engage in personal volunteer political activity and contribute personal resources to candidates and parties in any manner consistent with federal, state, and local laws."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) U.S. News & World Report, Michael Freeman, researcher, $250 to Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate, in February 2007.

"I'm not a journalist. I work in fact-checking," Freeman said, though he is in the news department. About the policy, he said, "In past years, they've sent that out, and it seemed like it really wasn't clear whether it applied to me or not."

The magazine's policy says employees could be accused of a conflict of interest if they donate, while it doesn't explicitly bar such a donation.

A spokeswoman for U.S. News said the new editor, Brian Kelly, is reviewing the policy.

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) U.S. News & World Report, Amanda Spake, senior writer, $250 to John Kerry in August 2004. Spake covered public health issues and policy. Now a freelance writer, she is on a fellowship from George Soros' The Open Society Institute to study the health effects of Hurricane Katrina.

"I went to a luncheon for Kerry," Spake said. "I had friends who were organizing that luncheon, and I felt I had to do it."

As for any conflict of interest, she said, "I never covered politics. I covered public health. It did not impact my coverage one bit."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) Vanity Fair, Elise O'Shaughnessy, contributing editor, $2,000 to Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean in January 2004.

A spokeswoman for Vanity Fair said that O'Shaughnessy was a contributor to the magazine when she made this donation. She is a former executive editor of Vanity Fair. For a time earlier this year she was editor of Tango magazine for women

"While Vanity Fair does not have a policy regarding its contract writers’ making political contributions, we would expect a writer to recuse himself from any story that presented a conflict of interest or even the appearance of one," said spokeswoman Beth Kseniak.

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) Vanity Fair, Michael Shnayerson, contributing editor, $2,000 to John Kerry in March 2004. The magazine has described Shnayerson as its de facto environmental editor, because he writes frequently on the topic, but he also has written about the likelihood of hacking of electronic voting machines, Halliburton's war-related profits, anti-terrorism data mining, global warming skeptics and other political topics.

"The fact is that there was no ban on political contributions at Conde Nast publications, at least as best I could determine (nor is there now)," Shnayerson said in an e-mail.

"I did give the matter some thought before I wrote my check, and it seemed to me that this was at worst a gray area, and at best a fairly clear one in favor of making the contribution. ... As a contributing editor, I write four stories a year. One might be about the environment or related to politics; the others might be about anything from a media subject to a fashion designer. This is different from a newspaper writer who covers a political beat, and to me tips the balance in favor of my right, as a citizen, to make any legal political contribution I choose to make."

He added this postscript: "I must say I do wish, in retrospect, that I had that $2,000 back to make a perhaps wiser contribution this go-round!"

Click to return to the list.

Click for related content

Read the story: Journalists dole out cash to politicians (quietly) Live Vote: Should journalists give? Compare the policies of news organizations Message board: Weigh in on journalists and politics

Newspapers:

(in order by approximate daily circulation)

(D) McClatchy Newspapers, Beryl Adcock, news desk chief, Washington bureau, $1,000 to John Kerry in April 2004. (She also gave a total of $650 to the Democratic National Committee in 2002 and 2003.) A blogger called these contributions to the attention of Adcock's bosses, Tony Ridder and Clark Hoyt. (Hoyt is now the public editor at The New York Times.) The bureau, then part of Knight Ridder, was known for its reporting that called into question the rationales for the war in Iraq.

"I was extremely upset and shaken that I had misunderstood something so important, and offered my resignation to Clark so as not to bring any further embarrassment to the company," Adcock said in an e-mail. "He refused it. He and Mr. Ridder both expressed regret that I had misunderstood the policy and had been hurt by it. I had discussed my donations on more than one occasion with more than one other editor here; I'd never made any secret of them, not knowing I wasn't supposed to be doing it. After this emerged, I sure wished that one of those editors had told me — or even told my bosses — so I could have stopped sooner.

"I no longer have a copy of the Knight Ridder ethics policy. Roughly, I recall it saying that employees are permitted to engage in political activity but that if there's a question of a conflict of interest they should discuss it with their supervisors, or something like that. I copy-edit stories and compile our news budgets and other communications with our newspapers, and it did not occur to me that my Washington bosses considered those functions a conflict of interest with making campaign donations.

"I was under the same policy at Knight Ridder's The Charlotte Observer newspaper in North Carolina, where I'd worked before coming to the Washington bureau. There I mostly worked in the features section, so I was confident there was no conflict of interest. I probably should have rethought that when I came to Washington, but I simply read the ethics policy, saw it was the same one I was used to, and my husband and I continued making our occasional donations."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) The Wall Street Journal, Krishnan Amantharaman, managing editor of the classroom edition, $500 to Barack Obama in two payments in February and March of 2007.

"I asked for those contributions back," Amantharaman said. "I don't want to comment on this."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) The Wall Street Journal, Henny Sender, senior special writer, $300 to John Kerry in May 2004. Sender covers Asia.

"Dow Jones' Code of Conduct does indeed bar news employees from contributing to partisan political organizations," Sender said in an e-mail. "I had been in Asia most of my career and this had never been an issue for me. As soon as I learned of this policy, which was shortly after I made that donation, I asked for and received a refund of my check back from the Kerry campaign. So for me, I wrote the check, realized the mistake, got the money back."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) The Wall Street Journal, Eben Shapiro, editor of the Weekend Journal section on Fridays, $1,500 to Democratic Victory 2004 in June 2004.

"The entry you're asking about reflected a purchase of art I made at a fundraiser," Shapiro said in an e-mail. "Shortly afterward, I was reminded of the Dow Jones' Code of Conduct provision barring news employees from contributing to partisan political activities. At that point, I returned the art and my money was refunded. So, while my mistake landed me on the list you're checking, at the end of the day my contribution was erased."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) The New York Times, Randy Cohen, ethics columnist, $585 in three donations in August 2004 to MoveOn.org, which conducted get-out-the-vote drives to defeat President Bush. In addition to the syndicated column "The Ethicist" for the Times Magazine, Cohen answers ethics questions for listeners of NPR.

Freelancers like Cohen are covered by the Times policy, which says, "Times readers apply exacting standards to the entire paper. They do not distinguish between staff-written articles and those written by outsiders. Thus as far as possible, freelance contributors to The Times, while not its employees, will be held to the same standards as staff members when they are on Times assignments, including those for the Times Magazine. If they violate these guidelines, they will be denied further assignments."

Cohen said he thought of MoveOn.org as nonpartisan and thought the donation would be allowed even under the strict rule at the Times.

"We admire those colleagues who participate in their communities — help out at the local school, work with Little League, donate to charity," Cohen said in an e-mail. "But no such activity is or can be non-ideological. Few papers would object to a journalist donating to the Boy Scouts or joining the Catholic Church. But the former has an official policy of discriminating against gay children; the latter has views on reproductive rights far more restrictive than those of most Americans. Should reporters be forbidden to support those groups? I’d say not. Unless a group’s activities impinge on a reporter’s beat, the reporter should be free to donate to a wide range of nonprofits. Make a journalist’s charitable giving transparent, and let the readers weigh it as they will.

"Those who do not cover anything, but write a column of opinion should have even more latitude. It is such a writer’s job to make his views explicit. Those donations to nonprofits will no doubt reflect the views he or she is hired to express. In evaluating such civic engagement, it is well to remember that to have an opinion is not to have a bias. To conceal one’s political opinions is not to be without them."

After MSNBC.com checked the names of Times staff and contributors on this list with a spokesperson for the Times, Cohen sent this addendum:

"That said, Times policy does forbid my making such donations, and I will not do so in the future."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) The New York Times, Christine Muhlke, deputy editor, style magazine, $500 to John Kerry in June 2004, and $1,800 in two donations in 2004 to Downtown for Democracy, which made independent expenditures to oppose President Bush.

Muhlke referred questions to a Times spokesperson, who said Muhlke joined the Times staff in April 2005, after the donations. Before then she was a contributor on contract, writing food articles. The Times policy, which forbids donations, says that it applies to freelance writers as well as staffers, while they are on Times assignments.

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D & R) The New York Times, Nancy Tilghman, freelance writer, $2,300 to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in March 2007; $1,000 to Bill Manger, Democratic candidate for Congress, in August 2004; $1,000 to President Bush in March 2004; and $2,000 to Wesley Clark, Democratic presidential candidate, in December 2003. Her most recent Times bylines were in January 2006 and sporadically from 2001 through 2004. Her 2007 donation also listed the Times as her employer.

Tilghman said she no longer writes for the Times.

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) Los Angeles Times, Nick Cuccia, design editor, $500 to John Kerry in March 2004, and $1,500 more in July 2004. Cuccia is a page designer on the features desk.

"I was not responsible for, or involved in, editing or placing national, political or campaign stories in the paper," Cuccia said in an e-mail.

The Times policy in effect at that time applied only to political writers: "Staff members should not take part in political or governmental activities they may be called upon to cover, or whose coverage they supervise."

In 2006, the Times completely overhauled its ethics policies, including a ban on political contributions by any editorial staff member.

"I am in compliance with that policy," Cuccia said, "and intend to remain so. Beyond that, I haven't any further comment."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) Los Angeles Times, Manohla Dargis, film critic, now at The New York Times, gave $1,000 to John Kerry in mid-July 2004, when she was still at The Los Angeles Times, and $1,000 more in late July, after she had been hired by The New York Times, but before she began the job. Previously, while at the L.A. Times, she gave $300 to Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader in September 2000, and $500 to Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean in December 2003.

Dargis has reviewed Michael Moore's "Sicko," among other films with political themes. She wrote that "Sicko" was "persuasive, insistently leftist."

"I made the Dean, Nader and first Kerry donations when the Los Angeles Times had no policy/guidelines prohibiting political donations by the likes of me," Dargis said in an e-mail. "The second Kerry donation was made when I was a free agent, employed neither by the Los Angeles Times nor by the New York Times."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) Los Angeles Times, Dan Neil, automobile critic, $250 to the Democratic National Committee in July 2004. Neil received the Pulitzer Prize for criticism in 2004.

"Yup, that's me, all right," Neil said in an e-mail.

"Two things: I'm a columnist, not a straight-news guy, and my political affiliations are not, I don't think, in doubt. Goes to the question of whether my 'activism' by donation is indicative of some covert (and mythic) liberal bias in the press.

"Two, I believe — I am not certain of this — the paper's policy specifically bars public political advocacy/activism. In other words, I couldn't go out and rep the DNC and then pretend to be an impartial commentator, as Paul Begala has done, or come very close to doing, in any event.

"This policy has, at times, worked a hardship on me. I wanted to march with Latinos in Los Angeles in 2006 — justice for Latino immigrants being a human rights issue right on my front door in Los Angeles — but I couldn't because of my understanding of the paper's policy on public advocacy."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(R) Los Angeles Times, Charles Perry, food writer, $200 to the Republican National Committee in October 2004.

"Yes, that $200 was my donation," Perry said in an e-mail.

"The Times ethics policy states as its basic principle that editorial employees may not use their positions at the paper to promote personal agendas or causes, nor should they allow their outside activities to undermine the impartiality of Times coverage, in fact or in appearance. I wholeheartedly support this policy, without any reservation.

"I'm a food and drink writer, not a news reporter. I have always felt there was no problem with contributing to my party because Food is a non-political section (could I somehow smear Democrat beers and whitewash Republican ones?). Therefore I felt my political contributions could scarcely discredit my writing, or my employer.

"The ethics policy says that staff members may not "contribute money to a partisan campaign or candidate" (though it also says "The Times does not seek to restrict staff members' participation in civic life"). Since 2004, just to be on the safe side, I have declined to make any political contributions."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) New York Daily News, Celia McGee, reporter, $1,000 to New York Sen. Hillary Clinton in May 2005, when McGee was on staff for The Daily News, and another $1,000 in March 2007, when she was a freelancer for The New York Times.

The Daily News spokeswoman said McGee left the paper in February 2006. A Times spokesman said the prohibition applies to freelancers "when they are on Times assignments."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) New York Daily News, Matthew Roberts, photographer, $404 to John Kerry in March 2004.

Roberts did not reply to messages.

Click to return to the list.

-----

(R) The Washington Post, Stephen Hunter, film critic, $250 to the National Republican Congressional Committee in June 2004. Hunter received the Pulitzer Prize for criticism in 2003. He also is known as a writer of thriller novels.

"That is indeed my donation, probably an unwise idea," Hunter said.

"A couple of years afterward, I was called aside by someone in management and told not to do it again. And being an obedient boy, I didn't do it again."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) The Chicago Tribune, Maureen Ryan, entertainment reporter, $1,500 to John Kerry in three donations in 2004; $1,000 to the Democratic National Committee in October 2004; and $500 to the Ohio Democratic Party in October 2004.

In September 2005, the Tribune's public editor disclosed in his column that Ryan had given to Kerry, then had written a column unfavorably comparing President Bush's response to Hurricane Katrina to Oprah Winfrey's response when she visited New Orleans.

In her own column, Ryan apologized to readers : "You should have had that information up front. I am sorry you did not. Having said that, I can tell you from the bottom of my heart that if Kerry had been elected, and events in New Orleans played out exactly the way they did last week, I would have written the same piece, substituting Kerry's name for Bush. Though I contributed to a Democratic cause, last week I praised Fox News' coverage of the post-Katrina disaster. Though I celebrated Oprah Winfrey's actions after the flood, I have written articles critical of her in the last year. As I have in the past, I will continue to attempt to be as honest and as fair as I can be in my television coverage, and I would feel honored if you could forgive this unintentional oversight and continue to share this space with me. Because you readers — even those of you who disagree with me — are the reasons I do what I do."

The paper's public editor responded to MSNBC.com's questions sent to Ryan, saying the rules were tightened in early 2005.

"The Tribune ethics policy includes a blanket ban on editorial employees making any political contributions," wrote public editor Tim McNulty. "Now a few particulars...

"Back in 2004, Ms. Ryan was a writer in the feature section of the newspaper. She asked both her immediate supervisor and my predecessor as public editor if it was OK for her to make contributions.

"She was told at the time that it was permissible as long as she was not involved in political coverage. Ms. Ryan did not have any role then in reporting directly or even indirectly on politics.

"Since that time, the company found it impractical to monitor exceptions and far better, we think, to simply say in the ethics policy that 'no editorial employee, whether involved in political coverage or not, may donate to or be affiliated in any way with such groups' (referring to political parties and causes)."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) The Chicago Tribune, John von Rhein, classical music critic, $200 to the Democratic National Committee in October 2004.

Update: Von Rhein sent this by e-mail: "I write strictly about classical music for the Chicago Tribune and was unaware of the paper's policy regarding political contributions by staff writers, even when acting as private individuals. I since have been informed of the policy and have told my editors I will adhere to company guidelines in the future."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) San Francisco Chronicle, William Pates, letters editor for the editorial page, $600 to John Kerry in three donations in March and April 2004. Pates, who selected which letters were published, was moved to the sports copy desk after the staff of a Web site at San Jose State University, Grade the News, asked about his contributions. The Newspaper Guild contested the transfer and Pates is now back as the letters editor.

Pates did not return a message, but he told The Associated Press that he had not thought the paper's policy against political activity would apply to him, because he worked on the opinion pages.

The paper's editorial page editor, John Diaz, told MSNBC.com that Pates had done an honest, professional job in his "gatekeeper role" and just hadn't thought the issue through.

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) Newsday, Long Island, Rita Hall, section designer/artist and sometime writer, $210 to Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton in March 2006, and ...

"Dig deeper," she said. "I gave $2,000 to Kerry." Indeed, she did, in March 2004. "I'm not allowed to do this. I know it's against the rules," she said of giving to candidates. "I'll probably get fired. They're looking for any excuse to cut staff here."

She also slipped some anti-Bush material into a first-person column she wrote about her son, who won the Top Chef competition on the Bravo network. "In passing I mentioned that I was interested in finding people who hated Bush as much as I did. They took that out.

"My view is: You're still going to have an opinion whether you admit to it or not. If you don't admit to it, you're being dishonest. Let's be transparent."

Newsday's senior editor, John Mancini, who hadn't known of Hall's contributions, said, "It is against our policy for anyone on the editorial staff to make political contributions. Anything that would call into question our objectivity. It stems from the appearance of conflict being a problem."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) The Boston Globe, Rebecca Ostriker, arts editor/writer, $2,000 to John Kerry in June 2004.

Ostriker was on vacation and did not reply to messages.

Globe editor Martin Baron said Ostriker was a part-time copy editor in the Living/Arts section in June 2004. Now she is on staff.

"Our policy is clear," Baron said in an e-mail. "No political contributions by anyone in the newsroom. I am not aware of any breaches of the policy in the last few years."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) The Boston Globe, Henry Riemer, sports statistician, $1,700 to Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean in 2003-2004 and $1,000 in 2004 to Democracy for America, which gave to Democrats. Riemer retired in 2004.

"We felt the need in 2004 to clarify a seeming ambiguity among some staffers about whether those who had no involvement in political coverage could make political contributions," said Globe editor Martin Baron. "The discovery (by our own reporters) of Henry Riemer's contribution was one reason we issued a clarifying memo."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(R) The Star-Ledger, Newark, Robin Gaby Fisher, feature writer, $200 to President Bush in March 2004 and $300 to the Republican National Committee in November 2004.

Fisher said she doesn't cover politics and the paper doesn't have a policy on contributions. She gave in 2004, she said, because of the war. "It frightened me that it was a bad time to change course, because we were in the war. After getting your call and reflecting on it, I think it was kind of a bad idea."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) Star Tribune, Minneapolis, Barbara Haugen, copy editor, $250 to Sen. Amy Klobucher, a Democrat, in October 2006.

Haugen did not return phone calls. The paper's managing editor, Scott Gillespie, said, "We have a conflict of interest policy. We ask that people who are involved in political coverage — we dissuade them — we actually dissuade the entire staff. We haven't banned it outright for the entire newsroom. Our policy says that people should avoid doing any partisan politics on their own, avoid any politics. It's especially emphasized for people who do political coverage."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) Detroit Free Press, Susan Hall-Balduf, copy editor, $300 to John Kerry in July 2004. Now editing news copy, she gave when she was in features.

"I was scolded," Hall-Balduf said. "We did a story on how easy it was to look up these records on the Internet, and they were not happy to find a couple of our own people on the list. But I made the point that I worked only in features, and I never edited any stories that have to do the election. I was told not to do it again. I wouldn't do it again. But at the time my job was focused on the doings of Britney Spears."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) Detroit Free Press, Joel Thurtell, reporter, $500 to the Michigan Democratic State Central Committee in September 2004.

"Whatever the Free Press policy is," Thurtell said, "I actually have my own policy about that: I'm a citizen of the United States. I have a right to support whatever candidate I like."

Thurtell said his political views don't influence his reporting, as demonstrated by his role as a reporter on the stories disclosing the ways that Democratic Rep. John Conyers used his congressional staff to run personal errands and do campaign business.

"I got tons of e-mail from liberal-type people who likened me to Karl Rove. I have tried to be as honest as I possibly can as a reporter."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) The Oregonian, Portland, Steve Amick, reporter, $200 in  July 2004 to the Democratic National Committee. Amick is no longer at the paper.

"I don't want to be interviewed," Amick said, hanging up the phone.

Click to return to the list.

-----

(R) The Miami Herald, Harry Broertjes, copy editor/page designer, $250 to the Republican National Committee in June 2006, $500 more in August 2006 and $200 to President Bush in August 2004.

Broertjes, on the Broward County staff, did not return telephone messages. Herald managing editor Dave Wilson said the policy is clear: "Journalists should not make campaign contributions."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(R) The San Diego Union-Tribune, Joe Cline, graphic artist, $200 to the Republican National Committee in October 2004, and $400 to President Bush in November 2004.

Cline did not reply to messages.

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) The San Diego Union-Tribune, Penni Crabtree, business reporter, $225 in October 2004 to MoveOn.org, which ran get-out-the-vote efforts to defeat President Bush.

Crabtree did not reply to messages.

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) The San Diego Union-Tribune, Bob Elledge, assistant news editor, $250 to Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark in January 2004 and $500 to John Kerry in July 2004. Also gave $250 to Clark in 2003.

Elledge did not reply to messages.

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) The San Diego Union-Tribune, Shaffer Grubb, graphic artist, $500 to MoveOn.org, which opposes President Bush, in 2006; $500 in 2006 to Michael Arcuri, a Democrat elected to Congress from New York, in 2006, and $500 in 2006 to Christine Jennings, a Democrat who lost a still-contested congressional race in Florida.

Grubb does elegant infographics, including an award-winning graphic on the toll of U.S. dead in Iraq. He began working at the paper in May 2005 after graduating from the University of Missouri-Columbia.

"I asked my superior before I gave," Grubb said. "It's allowed."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) The San Diego Union-Tribune, Arline Smith, news production editor, $500 to the Democratic National Committee in October 2004.

"Yes, that is my donation," Smith said in an e-mail. "I am the production editor at the Union-Tribune. This means I coordinate the flow of type and pages from the Newsroom through Composing to Platemaking. In my job I have no responsibility for the assigning, reporting or editing of political stories or for their placement, headlines, etc. There is nothing in our ethics policy that bars me from making political donations."

See below for her husband, Charlie.

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) The San Diego Union-Tribune, Charlie Smith, copy editor, $500 to the Democratic National Committee in June 2004.

"That's my wife, Arline," Smith said. "She is the one who made the donations." And his wife agrees. (See Arline Smith, above.)

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) The Sun, Baltimore, John Scholz, copy editor, $250 to the Democratic National Committee in March 2004.

According to an article in The Sun, Scholz retired in July 2004. He worked for the business copy desk and did not view the donation as a conflict, the newspaper said. The Sun at that time had no policy banning donations. Scholz was due to retire soon after that article was published.

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) San Jose Mercury News, Rachel Wilner, sports editor, $250 to John Kerry in June 2004.

Wilner said her understanding was that the paper's policy allows contributions unless it would present the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) Boston Herald, Chris Donnelly, news librarian, 16 donations in 2003 and 2004: $3,200 to the Democratic National Committee, $2,500 to John Kerry, $675 to MoveOn.org, which opposes President Bush, and $200 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Donnelly, who now works for a database company, said he thought of himself as a librarian, not a journalist, although he worked for the news department. He said he didn't know the paper's policy.

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) South Florida Sun-Sentinel, Fort Lauderdale, Ethan Skolnick, sports columnist, $250 to Peter Deutsch, Democratic candidate for Senate, in July 2004; and $250 to Debbie Schultz, Democratic candidate for House, in June 2005.

"I no longer can make any more," Skolnick said in an e-mail. "At the time that I made them — they were both friends of a politically active friend — I was not aware of the newspaper's policy that restricts us from doing so (even if we work in sports, as I do).

"Anyway, after carefully reading the ethics policy last year, I disclosed the donations to my editor. When I've been asked for donations since, I have declined. I also told political organizations to take me off of their call lists."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Randy Galloway, sports columnist, $750 to the Democratic National Committee in three payments in 2004 and 2005; and $500 to Democratic Rep. Martin Frost in September 2004. Previously gave $1,000 in 2002 to Senate candidate Ron Kirk, Democrat.

"That was my wife, Janeen," Galloway said in an e-mail. "It's a joint checking account, both names on the checks. She makes her own political donations."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Vincent Langford, sports copy editor, $500 to the Democratic National Committee in October 2006.

Langford did not reply to messages.

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) The Hartford Courant, Nancy Gallinger, copy editor, $250 to John Kerry in July 2004.

"That is my contribution," Gallinger said in an e-mail. "Since that time, Tribune has adopted a policy against political contributions by journalists."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) The Hartford Courant, Bill Lewis, copy editor, $250 to John Kerry in August 2004. Lewis, who was a copy editor on the A section, or news, is now in features.

Lewis did not reply to messages.

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) Richmond Times-Dispatch, Michael Hardy, state political reporter, $1,000 in February 2006 to Democrat Matt Brown, the former Rhode Island secretary of state, who ran for the Senate before dropping out amid a fundraising controversy.

As a state capitol political reporter in Virginia, Hardy writes frequently about Democrats and Republicans.

"My contribution in a Rhode Island primary was based on a personal decision," he said in an e-mail. "As for my assignments, I cover the governor's office, state appellate courts and the General Assembly. I have no national responsibilities."

The managing editor of the Times-Dispatch, Peggy Bellows, did not reply to messages.

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) Richmond Times-Dispatch, Pam Mastropaolo, copy editor, $1,650 to the Democratic Party of Virginia in February 2007, and $1,165 in February 2006.

Mastropaolo didn't reply to messages. Nor did the managing editor, Peggy Bellows.

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) Contra Costa Times, Walnut Creek, Calif., Robert Taylor, fine arts reporter, $500 to the Democratic National Committee, October 2004.

"I write about visual arts for the Times," Taylor said. "I'm a features writer and reviewer. If I were a political reporter, I might have made a different decision. If we have a policy on making political donations, I'm not aware of it."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) The Press-Enterprise, Riverside, Calif., Mark Benoit, wire editor, $500 in October 2004 to MoveOn.org, which ran get-out-the-vote efforts to defeat President Bush. As a wire editor, Benoit is a copy editor who selects which state, national and international stories to publish.

"I'd rather not talk about it," Benoit said.

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) Palm Beach Post, Fla., George McEvoy, columnist, $200 to John Kerry in May 2004, another $200 in June 2004, and $204 to the Democratic National Committee in September 2004.

McEvoy did not reply to messages.

Click to return to the list.

-----

(R) The Commercial Appeal, Memphis, Barbara Bradley, fashion editor, $300 to the Republican National Committee in November 2004. Previously gave $500 to President Bush in December 2003.

"I am a fashion and features reporter and was ignorant of our newspaper's policy against donations by reporters," Bradley said in an e-mail. "My editors informed me, and I made no more contributions."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) The Des Moines Register, Stephen P. Dinnen, business reporter, $250 to John Kerry in June 2004. His byline is S.P. Dinnen.

Dinnen said he wasn't sure whether he gave to Kerry or not. "It might have been my wife. She's active in politics." He said he wasn't sure how the campaign would have gotten his occupation and employer for the records.

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) The Honolulu Advertiser, Chris Neil, wire editor, $500 to John Kerry in June 2004. A wire editor is typically a copy editor who selects which state, national and international news to publish.

Neil did not reply to messages.

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) The Blade, Toledo, James Bradley, copy editor, $250 to John Kerry in June 2004, and $250 to the Democratic National Committee in September 2004.

Bradley, who edits news copy, said he didn't know whether the paper has a policy on political activity. "It's never come up."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) Lexington Herald-Leader, Brian Throckmorton, copy desk chief, $250 to John Kerry in June 2004. His staff edits local news articles, selects wire stories and writes headlines.

"The thing that we try to avoid is the appearance of partiality," Throckmorton said. "And for me that means bumper stickers and yard signs and things that might lead the public to easily but falsely suspect that there's a problem with our impartiality. But something as private as a donation which they might have to work to find out...."

Besides, he said, "the fact of a political donation doesn't imply lack of impartiality or bad news judgment to begin with, and one person making a donation doesn't imply that there's a bias throughout the newsroom."

Then Throckmorton said, "I'm not comfortable being included in the story. Do not publish my name."

The paper's managing editor, Tom Eblen, said in an e-mail, "Herald-Leader newsroom employees are not allowed to actively or publicly participate in politics. Our policies strongly discourage, but do not prohibit, this type of donation."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(R) The Morning Call, Allentown, Pa., Beth Hudson, sports reporter, $500 to the Republican National Committee in October 2004.

Hudson did not reply to messages.

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) The Daytona Beach, Fla., News-Journal, Marc Davidson, editor, $200 to Sen. Bill Nelson, Florida Democrat, in March 2006, and $250 to Sen. Russell Feingold, Democrat from Wisconsin, in July 2002.

Davidson, the senior editor and a member of the paper's owning family, said in an e-mail that the paper "has no policy prohibiting contributions by employees. It does require its editorial employees not to RUN for office, though. I think my grandfather, who made most of the policies we follow, thought that preventing donations would rob them of their last right to political expression — a line he didn't want to cross.

"Yes, those are my donations. I've always been an active Democrat, and until my responsibilities at the N-J became editorially related, I was a figure in the county Democratic Party.

"But I will say that no one is ever in doubt over this newspaper's politically liberal stance, and it's unlikely that I would send money to a candidate I was not already committed (in my mind) to support. That support would be evident in my work, regardless of my contributions.

"As a general rule of thumb we try to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest, so it's unlikely that you'd see too many political contributions large enough to make those lists coming from any editorial staff. I'm kind of the exception to that rule because, as I said earlier, no one is in any doubt about the paper's stances and since my name (rightly or not) is inextricably linked with the paper, no one is going to construe an occasional donation by me as being in conflict and everyone is going to assume I sent a contribution even if I didn't.

"I don't often make such contributions, but sometimes, as with the Nelson one you list, I felt it was vital to support him."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) Albany, N.Y., Times Union, Greg Montgomery, graphic design editor, $500 to the Democratic National Committee in September 2004; $725 to MoveOn.org, which opposed President Bush, in 2004; $1,600 to John Kerry in 2003-2004; and $250 to Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., in 2006.

Montgomery said he doesn't think of himself as a journalist — he designs covers for magazines and feature sections and does the occasional news graphic or map. He said the paper has no written policy on political activity. When he gave, he said, "I thought that was a particular point in time when it was time to stand up and be counted." As for any future donations, he said, "It's a moot point, because I'm out of money."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(R) The Washington Times, film critic Gary Arnold, $1,000 to the Republican National Committee in four donations in 2004. Also $1,400 total to the RNC in six donations in 1997-2003. Arnold was the full-time critic for The Washington Times before becoming a freelancer for the paper at the end of 2005.

Arnold said he'd like to see more disclosure of the political views of journalists. "I'm always reading things from political reporters who pretend to be impartial, but it's clear what their biases are."

He said that political issues are "a non-issue for 90 percent of the movies I review" but that the minority is getting larger, with much of Hollywood wearing its opinions on its sleeve.

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) San Gabriel Valley Newspapers, Calif., Eric Terrazas, sports editor, $200 to the Democratic National Committee in October 2004, and $500 more in May 2006.

Terrazas did not reply to messages.

Click to return to the list.

-----

(R) The New York Sun, Liz Peek, financial columnist, $2,000 to Elizabeth Dole, Republican, in March 2007; $2,000 to the Volunteer PAC, which supports Republicans, in June 2006; $1,000 to Mark Kennedy, Republican, in June 2006; $500 in June 2006 to Straight Talk America, which supported Republicans; $15,000 to the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee in April 2006; and $4,200 to Kathleen Troia McFarland, Republican House candidate, in November 2005. In previous years, she gave $65,000 to the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Peek did not return calls. A PR person sent an e-mail asking what the story was about but then would not answer questions.

The managing editor of The Sun, Ira Stoll, said, "We don't have a written policy on that. I can imagine situations where it might pose a conflict. But to me the right to contribute to a campaign is a basic free speech right, and I would want to err on the side of allowing those contributing to the Sun to exercise those rights, and it has the side benefit of disclosing to those readers something that might otherwise be hidden from them."

But, we asked, were the donations disclosed to the readers in the Sun? "No, but as you've proven, they are easily found on the Internet."

"Our readers are very sophisticated," he said, able to tell the difference between an editorial endorsing a candidate and a journalist donating to a candidate.

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) The Lincoln, Neb., Journal Star, Paul Fell, editorial cartoonist, $450 in 2006 to Maxine Moul, Democratic candidate for the House.

"For your information, I did contribute the amounts listed to the Maxine Moul for Congress campaign in 2006," Fell said in an e-mail. "I am a freelance cartoonist, who contracts with the Lincoln Journal Star to draw three editorial cartoons a week.

"They don't pay me enough money to be able to dictate how I conduct myself in political campaigns. I generally do not donate to political candidates, but Maxine Moul is a longtime friend and former newspaper publisher where I got my start as a cartoonist back in 1976.

"Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass what the Lincoln Journal Star or their parent organization, Lee Enterprises, policies are on allowing newsroom staff to give to candidates and parties. I do not believe they did disclose my donations. That's their problem, not mine."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) The Lincoln, Neb., Journal Star, Sylvia Hermanson, copy editor, $250 to the Democratic National Committee in January 2007.

Hermanson said this was a joint contribution with her spouse. "So, am I busted? I'll have to check our policy on newsroom practices."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(R) Macon, Ga., Telegraph, Stephen "Keich" Whicker, local government reporter, $250 to Republican congressional candidate Mac Collins in October 2006.

Whicker, who covered a different congressional race for the paper, said he didn't contribute — it was his father of the same name who paid for a ticket to a fundraiser where President Bush was speaking. But it was the son, the reporter, who used the ticket to attend the fundraiser. "Dad's a Republican. He couldn't go, and basically he gave the ticket to me to go."

"Because I cover politics, I'm extremely careful about that sort of thing. I don't even vote in elections. I didn't pay for it. I went to attend — I'd never seen the president before."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) New Hampshire Union Leader, David Johnson, sports copy editor, $500 to James Craig, the state House Democratic leader and candidate for Congress, in March 2006.

"I don't believe they have a policy on that," Johnson said of the Union Leader, the state's largest newspaper. "I've never heard one way or another. It doesn't affect anything that I do personally. Not that sports doesn't have political issues. It does."

The paper's managing editor, Edward C. Domaingue II, did not reply to an e-mail.

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) Corpus Christi, Texas, Caller-Times, Elvia Aguilar, business writer, $500 to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in March 2007.

She said she accompanied her father and brother to a Clinton fundraiser, but that it was her father, not she, who made the contribution. "No, my news organization doesn't allow journalists to make campaign contributions. And I didn't make a campaign contribution," Aguilar said in an e-mail. "I accompanied my father and brother to the event, and my father paid for this with the cashier's checks. I do not know why I showed up as a contributor."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) National Catholic Reporter, Margot Patterson, senior writer and arts/opinion editor, $2,100 to Claire McCaskill, Senate candidate, Democrat, in October 2006; a total of $800 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in 2004 and 2006; $1,000 to Democratic Rep. Emanuel Cleaver in 2004; and $250 to Howard Dean, Democratic presidential candidate, in February 2004.

Patterson has reported from the Middle East and written extensively about political topics, including cover articles on the Iraq war, for the independent national weekly in Kansas City. Both Rep. Cleaver and Sen. McCaskill oppose the war.

The reporter also signed a petition against the war and paid to have it published as the advertisement "KC Metro Citizens Oppose War On Iraq!"

None of this was disclosed to the readers of NCR, which bills itself as "the independent newsweekly."

Patterson said her policy is more honest than the "hypocrisy" of reporters who hold positions but don't back them up with donations.

"Most reporters I know have opinions, regardless of whether in their capacity as citizens they choose to give to a political candidate," she said in an e-mail. "I feel my responsibility as a journalist is to be fair to the people and issues involved and to be as accurate as possible. That responsibility is incumbent upon me regardless of whether I choose to vote — or not — or choose to contribute money to a political campaign — or not."

"As I see it, I was born a citizen of the U.S. and I will die a citizen of the U.S. and my responsibilities to my country do not suddenly cease because I take a particular job. When I see my country embark on a course of action that I think disastrous to its future and fatal to its citizens, I think it my duty to do my utmost to stop it. That includes supporting candidates who will promote a less aggressive foreign policy and who will defend constitutional government and the rule of law. All of us have multiple roles and identities in life that we negotiate."

About signing the petition against the war, Patterson wrote in the e-mail, "I’m sure I had long since forgotten about that ad when writing the articles." In any case, she said, that's not "an ethical problem. For one thing, I wasn’t covering the same people I gave money to when I wrote the articles. For another, the newspaper I work for has been strongly and unequivocally opposed to the war from the outset and has made that abundantly clear in its editorials. NCR has always been anti-war and it is NCR policy not to accept a dime from the Department of Defense. I do not think NCR readers can be in any doubt as to where the paper stands when it comes to war. It’s against it. There is no attempt to be neutral or even-handed about this topic."

Her editor, Tom Roberts, said he was "less than a strict constructionist on the matter of what reporters should be allowed to do in the exercise of citizenship and conscience." He said that the paper's articles have in fact been neutral and even-handed, though its editorials have opposed the war. On campaign contributions, he allowed them unless they would be perceived as a conflict of interest.

"The contribution to the ad, on the other hand, is clearly another matter. Although the paper, editorially, has consistently and strongly opposed the war even before it started, a reporter signing a petition crosses the line to activism and we've spoken about it."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) York, Pa., Daily Record, Teresa Cook, copy editor, $500 to Democratic House candidate John Sarbanes in Maryland in July 2006.

Cook didn't return calls. Her editor, James McClure said, "I'm not going to comment."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) Muskegon, Mich., Chronicle, Terry Judd, reporter and chief of the newspaper's Grand Haven bureau, $1,900 to the Democratic National Committee in six contributions from 2004 through 2006; and $2,000 to John Kerry in March 2004.

"You caught me," Judd said. "I guess I was just doing it on the side."

The paper's metropolitan editor, John Stephenson, said appearances of a conflict do matter. "We run letters all the time from people who say we're right-wing this or left-wing that." He checked with the paper's senior editor and found that the paper has no written policy on donations, but he said it will consider one now.

"This information makes us want to think further and more deeply about what we encourage and discourage in reporters," Stephenson said. "We have always historically said, 'You guys can have any political beliefs you want, just don't wear your hearts on your sleeve, or your bumper. Truthfully, this sort of thing may be the new bumper.' Ten years ago, you may have to have waded through a mountain of paper to find this stuff. We are rethinking. It's OK to do something if our readers don't know it? Is it all about appearances, or is there more principle here? It's an interesting question."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) Fort Wayne, Ind., News-Sentinel, Fran Adler, copy editor, $250 in August 2006 to Dr. Tom Hayhurst, Fort Wayne city councilman and Democrat who lost the congressional race in 2006 for the 3rd Congressional District.

Adler said, "Well, you know, it was from my husband and me. I'm surprised that my name is on it. That's neither here nor there. That's just how you found me. We are people and citizens, and we have the right to support candidates in our own ways.

"I was asked to distribute flyers at a 4-H fair, but my editors thought something that visible was inappropriate. But I was allowed to make a contribution. I'm a citizen, and I'm going to have my opinions regardless. I think I can be absolutely objective about him and his opponents and anything. I'm in the distinct minority in this newspaper in my political leanings — I don't think it's an issue."

The paper's editor, Kerry Hubartt, said he hadn't thought of campaign contributions as public. "We don't mind contributions as such, but we have to tell our staff they can't openly participate in a campaign, handing out flyers.

"There are probably things we may not know about in terms of participation," Hubartt said, "that might make us nervous if we did know about them."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) Fort Wayne, Ind., News-Sentinel, Faith Van Gilder, copy editor, $500 in October 2006 to Dr. Tom Hayhurst, Fort Wayne city councilman and Democrat who lost the congressional race in 2006 for the 3rd Congressional District.

"Actually, my husband and I gave," Van Gilder said. "I don't remember why.

"We just rewrote our ethics policy for the newsroom about two years ago. I looked at it, and it said you can't run for political office. It doesn't mention donations or wearing a political button or putting a political bumper sticker on your car. We have a pretty small newsroom, 30-35 people, and we, for the most part, we all know each other's political stripes.

"I'm sure one of our main objectives is to be very neutral when we're writing a headline, when we're editing copy. We would never put our personal opinions in a cutline. When you're a professional journalist, you separate what you believe from your job. I've been in the business for 25 years. Maybe someone who is younger has struggled more with that. I'm able to keep the two separate."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) Martha's Vineyard, Mass., Times, Whit Griswold, copy editor, $650 to MoveOn.org, which got out the vote against President Bush, in September 2004, $1,500 more in October 2004, $500 in September 2006, and $1,000 in November 2006; and $500 to Joseph Courtney, Democratic House candidate in Connecticut, in September 2006.

Griswold said he now believes that he shouldn't donate to candidates.

"Your question's a good one. I never even thought of it. I'm not a reporter. I don't think of myself as setting policy — I don't. But I have a little influence as a copy editor. I can see, if the world was perfect, I shouldn't do it. My boss doesn't want us to run for office. Coincidentally, he's a conservative Republican and did endorse Bush twice. I'm way over on the other side."

Click to return to the list.

Click for related content Read the story: Journalists dole out cash to politicians (quietly) Live Vote: Should journalists give? Compare the policies of news organizations Message board: Weigh in on journalists and politics

Radio:

(D) Air America and CBS, Betsy Rosenberg-Zimmerman, environment talk show host and environment reporter, $500 in June 2005 to Joe Nathan, Democrat; 1,000 in October 2004 to Environment2004 PAC, which made independent expenditures opposing President Bush; $1,000 in June 2002 to Colorado Senate candidate Thomas Strickland, Democrat; $250 to John Kerry in March 2002; and $1,000 in September 1998 to EMILY's List.

Rosenberg-Zimmerman contributed while she was reporting on the environment for CBS Radio and KCBS in California, and then when she moved to Air America to host a talk show. Her program on April 17 was devoted to Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, to whom she contributed by giving $1,000 in February 2004 to the California Victory ’04 PAC. "Congratulations for all your bold leadership," she told Boxer. She didn't disclose to her listeners that she was a Boxer donor.

She said she is not a journalist now, although her program's Web site calls her one. Now she's a "radio activist."

"For a while I was calling myself an environmental reporter, because it was kind of newsy thing. That bio may just be an old bio."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) National Public Radio, Corey Flintoff, newscaster, $538 to Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean in December 2003. He is well known from "All Things Considered."

"That contribution was actually made by my wife, but it was on a joint account, so my name showed up on it," Flintoff said. "Since then, NPR has instituted a strict policy against campaign donations or political activity of any kind. I agree with the policy and follow it scrupulously. My wife still makes contributions."

Flintoff said a blogger called the contribution to NPR's attention, helping to lead NPR to tighten its policy.

Click to return to the list.

----

(D) National Public Radio, Michelle Trudeau, correspondent, $500 to Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean in two contributions in September 2003, and $500 more to Dean in May 2004. Trudeau covers science topics for "Morning Edition" and "All Things Considered."

Trudeau did not reply to messages.

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) National Public Radio affiliate in Washington, WAMU, Susan Goodman, reporter, $450 to Judy Feder, Democrat, in a congressional campaign in 2006; and $1,000 to the Ben Cardin for Senate campaign, Democrat, in 2005. Goodman, no longer at the station, reported on politics and public affairs. She also contributed feature stories to NPR's "Morning Edition" and "All Things Considered."

"Yes, I made those contributions and I voted for those people," Goodman said. "I did not cover those campaigns. I wouldn't cover anyone I was actively supporting."

If donations were not allowed, "I wouldn't work at a place like that. I don't think you should give up your rights as a citizen if you work as a journalist. I guess there are a few issues that I have no opinion on, but there are very few issues that I have no opinion on. There's an attempt to be balanced and fair. I feel as a citizen and a voter, I am responsible to myself, and to know about issues and take a stand. As for being a journalist, hey, you try to present your story in a way that opens the issue for people to ask questions, not to sell somebody on something."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) WWJ News Radio, Detroit, Vickie B. Thomas, reporter, gave a total of $1,000 to Senate candidate Kweisi Mfume in the Maryland race for a Senate seat in June and December 2005.

Thomas did not return telephone calls.

Click to return to the list.

-----

Wire services:

(D) Bloomberg News, Katherine Burton, reporter, $250 to John Kerry in March 2004, and $500 in June 2004 to Downtown for Democracy, which opposed President Bush. Burton covers investment management, including hedge funds.

Burton did not reply to messages.

The editor in chief of Bloomberg, Matthew Winkler, said that political donations are generally allowed at Bloomberg, but not if they might present a conflict, such as for political reporters. It's up to employees to police themselves. Someone at his level, he said, can't make any contributions.

Winkler himself gave $750 to the 2000 Gore campaign and the Democratic National Committee in 1998-1999 and gave to Democrats in earlier years. As reported by Washington City Paper in 2002, Winkler said these donations were made by his wife from a joint account and that he and his wife were one "economic entity." He said he and his wife would make no more donations. But in 2004, the records show, his wife gave $1,600 to Al Gore and the Democratic National Committee.

"I can't control everything my wife does," he told MSNBC.com. "I try. I try. I try."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) Bloomberg News, Robert Dieterich, energy editor, $250 in June 2004 to America Coming Together, which opposed President Bush.

"I'm not going to comment on this," Dieterich said. "I'm not going to have a conversation about this. I'm not going to give you a read one way or another." And he hung up the phone.

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) Bloomberg News, Joshua Fellman, reporter in Asia, $500 to Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean in December 2003, and after Dean dropped out, $500 to John Kerry in March 2004. Fellman has written about the Bush administration policies on the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.

Fellman did not reply to messages.

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) Bloomberg News, Robert Houck, multimedia news editor, $250 to Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean in January 2004. He also gave $710 to Dean in 2003.

Houck did not reply to messages.

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) Bloomberg News, Milanee Kapadia, reporter, $1,000 to John Kerry in May 2004. She is now a reporter for NY1, a cable news channel in New York City.

Kapadia did not reply to messages.

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) Bloomberg News, James Polson, reporter on energy and utilities, $250 to Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri in October 2006.

"The reason I made the donation is, I'm also the managing partner of a family farm in Missouri," Polson said. "My cousin who works the farm was a big McCaskill supporter. I cover electric companies in 50 states. I actually had not consulted the ethics policy."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) Bloomberg News, Carlos Torres, reporter in Washington, $250 to John Kerry in July 2004. He also gave $250 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in September 2003. Torres covers U.S. economic news.

"I have nothing to say about that," Torres said.

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) Bloomberg News, Robert Urban, real estate reporter, $225 in August 2004 to MoveOn.org, which opposed President Bush. Also gave $250 to Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean in November 2003.

"I have no comment," Urban said.

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) Bloomberg News, John Wydra, radio newscaster, $200 in October 2004 to the Democratic National Committee and $400 in 2003 to the same. No longer at Bloomberg, Wydra is starting a Web site, WydeWorld, promising "incisive commentary." "In 1986," the site says, "John took a one-year leave of absence from CBS in order to run for public office as a candidate for Congress in the 13th U.S. Congressional District in New Jersey, where he won the Democratic primary, but lost to the incumbent in the general election. That experience was the foundation for his intensified interest in public affairs."

Wydra did not reply to messages.

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) Dow Jones Newswires, Samuel J. Favate Jr., editor, $1,036 total in August and October 2004 to America Coming Together, which ran get-out-the-vote efforts to defeat President Bush.

Favate didn't reply to messages. These donations may have been ticket purchases to the "Vote for Change" concerts.

On his personal blog, Favate rails against the Iraq war, for gun control, for a tax audit of Christian psychologist James Dobson, etc.

An older blog, still online until recently, lists Favate's "people I don't like": George Bush, Pat Robertson and the Christian Coalition, Donald Rumsfeld, the Republican Party, John Ashcroft, Bill Frist, Dennis Hastert, Tom DeLay, Ann Coulter, the f---ing NRA, corporate America ("these are the people who are really in charge"), Clear Channel, Halliburton, Cablevision, and Wal-Mart. "You can be sure that I will be adding to this list from time to time, so try not to piss me off."

After MSNBC.com left a message asking about the blogs, his name disappeared from the current blog and the older one went dark, though you can see a copy.

Dow Jones spokesman Howard Hoffman said, "No, we don't have a blog policy, and we're not overly concerned about what Sam did or didn't do on his blog exercising his free speech rights."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) Dow Jones Newswires, Billy Mallard, credit markets editor, $200 to MoveOn.org in October 2006.

"I actually was aware of the restriction on partisan political contributions in the Dow Jones Code of Conduct before I made the contribution but thought MoveOn.org was OK because it wasn't the Republican Party or Democratic Party," Mallard said. "Once this surfaced last week, I spoke with my editors and agreed that this is a partisan group. Therefore I should not have sent a contribution and have asked for my contribution to be returned."

Dow Jones spokesman Howard Hoffman said, "We take our independence and our integrity seriously, and our Code of Conduct requires all news employees and executives to refrain from partisan political activity. We do understand that people sometimes make mistakes and they have an opportunity to make amends."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) Reuters, Lisa von Ahn, news desk editor, $200 to the Democratic National Committee in September 2004.

Von Ahn, who is listed as a desk editor, referred questions to the public relations person for Reuters, who said the company allows journalists to make "personal contributions."

Click to return to the list.

-----

(D) Reuters, Michael Erman, reporter, $250 to the Democratic National Committee in March 2004.

Erman covers oil and energy companies and issues. He wrote recently about corporate funding of skeptics of global warming. He declined to answer questions, referring the call to the public relations person, who said Reuters allows journalists to make "personal contributions."

Click to return to the list.

-----

Non-English-language news organizations:

(MSNBC.com was not able to reach any of these.)

(D) La Stampa, newspaper in Turin, Italy, Paolo Mastrolilli, New York correspondent, $250 to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in February 2007.

(D) New Delhi Television, Stephen Marks, reporter, Bethesda, Md., $2,300 to Hillary Clinton in March 2007.

(D) The Korea Daily News, Chang W. Kim, journalist, Kew Gardens, N.Y., $1,000 to Hillary Clinton in February 2006.

(D) Pakistan TV, Jack Khangura, reporter, Valencia, Calif., $4,000 to Hillary Clinton in December 2005.

(D) Oriental Daily, Chun Fai Cheng, reporter, Las Cruces, N.M., $250 to the Democratic National Committee in December 2005.

Posted by Skip at 8:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

In show of sensitivity, schools chief renames Easter events

TIVERTON — The Easter Bunny was to have made a stop at a craft fair at the Tiverton Middle School tomorrow, appearing for photos with students as part of a fundraising effort sponsored by the school’s Parent-Teacher Council.

.

But Schools Supt. William Rearick called a halt to the use of the word “Easter” at a school event, just as the word “Christmas” is out of bounds in school publications and activities.

.

Instead of the Easter Bunny, the Parent-Teacher Council booth will offer photos with Peter Rabbit.

Similarly, Rearick said, he has told officials of the Tiverton Land Trust that a flier inviting children to an egg hunt cannot include the word “Easter.” Rearick said he planned to review the proposed wording — which a Land Trust official said does not include the word “Easter” — before deciding whether students can take the flier home. Rearick said yesterday,

“We’re trying to walk a fine line between promoting any religion” while permitting celebrations.

“I don’t like the term ‘politically correct,’ ” Rearick said, but during the last year and a half or two years, he has become “more aware of folks who don’t have a Christian background.”

Posted by Doug at 7:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Senate punishes College Republicans for fraudulent WHAM scholarship ad

03/15/07 - The University of Rhode Island Student Senate denied the appeal of the College Republicans over a controversial scholarship at last night's meeting.

.

The senate, along with College Republican Chairman Ryan Bilodeau, debated whether the "White Heterosexual American Male" scholarship violated the senate bylaws, which prohibit discrimination by any member group. However, the club never granted the scholarship to an applicant.

The Student Organization Advisory and Review Committee, chaired by Matt Yates, handed two punishments to the group. The first required the College Republicans to write a letter of apology to be printed in the Cigar.

Continue reading "Free speech replaced with forced speech at URI?" »

Posted by Doug at 8:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

While a possible $1.1 million budget deficit hung over Tuesday's School Board meeting, it was the proposed elimination of a longstanding football tradition at Laconia High School - the McDonald's Most Valuable Player Award - that resulted in the most lively debate.

.

The administration at the high school has said "thanks, but no thanks" to McDonald's after 30 years of sponsorship, claiming that the size of the award and its corporate backing are perpetuating a student-held belief that football is viewed as more important than other cocurricular activities and possibly even academic achievement.

.

Principal Jon Freeman and Athletic Director Jim Chase appeared before the board to inform them of ongoing efforts to make sure that all student athletes receive equal treatment and recognition for their accomplishments with one of their most recent decisions being to inform Larry Johnston, a longtime Laconia High School sports supporter and McDonald's regional manager, that they will no longer be giving the award.

.

Freeman said the McDonald's MVP trophy — while a generous donation for years — was the only corporate sponsored award handed out to school athletes and was contributing toward a belief that football is valued more than other sports.

.

The principal said the move was not intended to insult Johnston or McDonald's, but rather falls in line with other school efforts to assure that different sports and different gendered athletes receive more consistent recognition.

.

"It's about what's fair ... what's best for the kids," said Freeman, noting that the school has made great strides in involving and recognizing a variety of different students for their athletic and academic endeavors.

.

School administrators say the McDonald's MVP trophy is larger than others and is believed to carry more weight than other awards, with even the salutatorian and valedictorian awards palling in comparison.

Continue reading "In liberal Utopia, everybody wins... sort of." »

Posted by Doug at 9:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Or, the heading could be:

One Down, 87 To Go!

With the Duke rape case in tatters, the alleged victim can't keep her story straight (she's changing version numbers like Microsoft!), the DNA samples are from other guys than the accused, and Nifong (the DA who has kept this fiasco going) has just asked to be replaced by a special prosecutor - a legal  version of Cut and Run!

Remember all of the uproar on that campus about rich white privilege, the New Black Panthers marching, students with their knickers all in knots, howls at almost lynch mob level to put the whole team into shackles, not to speak of the actual accused?

And not one of these out for "jail time before trial" (actually, trial optional) ever discussed "innocent before proven guilty".  Including a number of professors.

Gee, with a BA/BS, perhaps a Masters (or multiple), or PhDs (or multiples), wouldn't these erudite, learned folks know a tad about how our jurisprudence system works? 

Anywho, one of the esteemed Duke University hallowed Dons has just decided to walk out of the Ivory Tower:

DURHAM, N.C. - A Duke University professor resigned from her committee assignments, saying she was upset by the administration's decision to invite two lacrosse players accused of sexual assault back to campus.

Ah yes, the presumption of innocence - let's sacrifice due process on the PC altar, shall we?  Discussion of relevant and provable evidence?  Naw, we KNOW we are right and they are GUILTY!  Accused is not guilty.  And given the fumbling follies that have been splattered all over the media, there is MUCH to believe that the one to be accused is not the students but both the "exotic dancer" and the highly respected DA Nifong.

No mention about that, right?

Continue reading "Ah yes - PC stances versus reality" »

Posted by Skip at 9:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

MANCHESTER – The school board will review the mascots of Central and Memorial high schools, after a former student complained they are offensive to some minorities.

.

Last night, a fight that has boiled at Dartmouth College was taken to the Manchester School District, as 2005 Central class president Ibrahim Elshamy charged that Central's American Indian and Memorial's Crusaders herald a history that shouldn't be celebrated.

.

Elshamy, who now attends Dartmouth, said both symbols are hurtful and should be changed.

Indian and civil rights groups have fought Indian mascots in professional and collegiate sports, while the Crusades is a "dark spot" in Christian history, he said.

.

"Ostensibly under the name of religion, a fanatical army swept across continents, brutally engaging in genocide against Jews, Muslims, Orthodox Christian, women and children," said Elshamy, who has set up a Web site, HateMascot.com, to lobby against the two schools' symbols.

Posted by Doug at 10:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Sir,
. 
Every freedom loving American should be concerned about Rep. Keith Ellison's recent 'ceremonial' Qur'an swearing-in session.
.
Traditionally, the act of being sworn-in on the Bible has effectively been representative of holding one's oath (to uphold the US Constitution) accountable to the Giver of the liberties and values enshrined in the Constitution and has also essentially served as an affirmation of one's agreement with those values as the final authority over one's actions while in office. In choosing to be sworn-in on the Qur'an, Rep Ellison has effectively jettisoned the values of the US Constitution since the Qur'an demands loyalty to Islamic law as the supreme law. The values espoused by the Qur'an do not speak to American society's mores - to America's age-old acknowledgment of every individual's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Quite the contrary - they stand in alarming contradistinction to them!  As if that were not enough to generate concern, has America forgotten that almost 6 years ago, it was Qur'an taught and inspired people who nearly brought this country to its knees on Sept the 11th and that to this day, Qur'an instructed fundamentalists view America as the "great satan" and seek to destroy this country and the values that it upholds? 
. 
Concerned Americans wisely recognize that the degradation of society's freedom loving mores does not happen overnight - but over gradual, inconspicuous and seemingly minor acts that, as a composite over time, dramatically alter the face of society and day-to-day lives of individuals for the worst.  America would do well to vigorously defend its values at the outset before the "die is cast".
.

A friend of the 'Grok
Prospective American citizen

Posted by Doug at 7:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

(H/T: Linda Y)


Twas the month before **Christmas
When all through our land,
Not a Christian was praying
Nor taking a stand.

See the PC Police had taken away,
The reason for **Christmas** - no one could say.
The children were told by their schools not to sing,
About Shepherds and Wise Men and Angels and things.

It might hurt people's feelings, the teachers would say
December 25th is just a "Holiday".
Yet the shoppers were ready with cash, checks and credit
Pushing folks down to the floor just to get it!

CDs from Madonna, an X BOX, an I-pod
Something was changing, something quite odd!
Retailers promoted Ramadan and Kwanzaa
In hopes to sell books by Franken & Fonda.

As Targets were hanging their trees upside down
At Lowe's the word **Christmas** - was nowhere to be found.
At K-Mart and Staples and Penny's and Sears
You won't hear the word **Christmas**; it won't touch your ears.

Inclusive, sensitive, Di-ver-si-ty
Are words that were used to intimidate me.
Now Daschle, Now Darden, Now Sharpton, Wolf Blitzen
On Boxer, on Rather, on Kerry, on Clinton!

At the top of the Senate, there arose such a clatter
To eliminate **Jesus**, in all public matter.
And we spoke not a word, as they took away our faith
Forbidden to speak of salvation and grace.

The true Gift of **Christmas** was exchanged and discarded
The reason for the season, stopped before it started.
So as you celebrate "Winter Break" under your "Dream Tree"
Sipping your Starbucks, listen to me.
Choose your words carefully, choose what you say
Shout **MERRY CHRISTMAS**, not Happy Holiday!

Posted by Skip at 11:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Ayatollah Khomeini, 1979

"Allah did not create man so that he could have fun. The aim of creation was for mankind to be put to the test through hardship and prayer. An Islamic regime must be serious in every field. There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun and joy in whatever is serious."

Well, THAT explains why the Mohammed cartoons didn't go over too well, eh?  And that could explain why ANY little perceived slight is an "insult against Islam".  I hope that new sitcom in Canada, "Little Mosque in the Prarie", helps out....

This sure didn't.  One would think that with so many sheep in Australia, it would been seen as amusing (I always like a good pun).

Caption: Is Lamb

A PROPOSED advertisement featuring Sam Kekovich holding a slab of meat and announcing: "Is lamb" has been canned over fears it could offend Muslims.

Meat and Livestock Australia, which employs the ex-AFL star for the politically incorrect meat ad series, axed the proposal over fears it had gone too far.

The idea involved Kekovich standing over a barbecue with a Muslim preacher on either side of him as he grilled chops.

Kekovich was to hold up a chop to the imams and say: "Is lamb," mimicking an ad for Don meat, which says, "Is Don, is good."

A reworked version of the advertisement excluding the imams is due to air on January 14.

Kekovich said the new advertisement would still be compelling and was done "in a tasteful manner".

"The previous two had been fairly well received. But Islam is not involved at all," he said.

Sigh....PC wreaking humor again.....get a grip folks...it's a JOKE! 

(H/T: DhimmiWatch) 

Posted by Skip at 8:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Although it has been a while since I took a class at the college level, I try to follow the ongoing discussion of how Political Correctness and how leftward leaning faculties have tended to become.  I do surf over at Phi Beta Cons where I found this interesting (bolded emphasis is mine):

David French

I guess I am old fashioned but I keep thinking that excellence is the goal in and of itself at colleges and universities. 

Continue reading "Diversity in the Academy" »

Posted by Skip at 8:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

(H/T: Phi Beta Cons)
 

TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY    ASSISTANT PROFESSOR  Honors College

We seek a broadly-trained Ph.D.

OK, we are at least starting out with a bright person!

in government, American studies, international affairs/human rights, or a related field to teach introductory courses in American politics

Well, this certainly is a well rounded person...there's a lot of prereqs here! Yet, I wonder what in American Studies would be important, or what type of Government?  Now, add in the other and I'd have to say "WOW, that must have been a humdinger of a PhD thesis!" 

along with advanced undergraduate courses in ethnic/minority policy, gender, and related areas.

• Let's learn more and more about less and less of what is really significant because it makes me feel better about me
  
• Let's study stuff that I can teach because I couldn't master the more difficult stuff (quantum physics, AI theory, higher order math,  biochemistry)

Keep reading - it gets BETTER!

Continue reading "So, you doubted me on my last Post, eh?" »

Posted by Skip at 8:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

UPDATE 1:  They caved!  No, not the airport - the Rabbi and the lawyer.  Seems that public opinion turned against the Rabbi (according to this CNN story)

Christmas trees are going back up at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport.

Pat Davis, president of the Port of Seattle commission, which directs airport operations, said late Monday that maintenance staff would restore the 14 plastic holiday trees,...[snip]... Airport managers believed that if they allowed the addition of an 8-foot-tall menorah to the display, as Seattle Rabbi Elazar Bogomilsky had requested, they would also have to display symbols of other religions and cultures, which was not something airport workers had time for during the busiest travel season...Port officials received word Monday afternoon that Bogomilsky's organization would not file a lawsuit at this time to seek the placement of a menorah, Davis said in a statement.

======================================== 

I'm guessing the last one.  While I do agree with the sentiment that the secular progressives are trying to force all expressions of religion out of the public square, this one does have me scratching my head just a tad.

At this point, don't count on Christmas or even a PC Holiday Greeting at Sea-Tac, the airport that serves the Seattle and Tacoma areas.....the Christmas trees are down.  Why?

Seem that Rabbi Elazar Bogomilsky made quite the unfriendly "request" (ok, demand) that the airport management put up either a 6 or 8 foot menorah and host a public lighting ceremony for it.  While the original request went in around October, the Sea-Tac board did not see it until Dec 7.

Or, he'd sue.  Within two days.  Let me introduce you to my lawyer now.....Harvey Grad

So, what was the reaction of SeaTac?  Down with the trees!

After consulting with lawyers, port staff believed that adding the menorah would have required adding symbols for other religions and cultures in the Northwest. The holidays are the busiest season at the airport, Betancourt said, and staff didn't have time to play cultural anthropologists.

Instead, officials decided to remove holiday decorations as a whole. Maintenance workers boxed up the trees during the graveyard shift early Saturday, when airport  bosses believed few people would notice.

"We decided to take the trees down because we didn't want to be exclusive," said airport spokeswoman Terri-Ann Betancourt. "We're trying to be thoughtful and respectful, and will review policies after the first of the year."

So, what was the reaction of the Rabbi?

Bogomilsky said he was appalled by the decision.

"Everyone should have their spirit of the holiday. For many people the trees are the spirit of the holidays, and adding a menorah adds light to the season," said Bogomilsky, who works at Chabad Lubavitch, a Jewish education foundation headquartered in Seattle's University District.

So, what was the reaction of the lawyer?

"They've darkened the hall instead of turning the lights up," said his lawyer, Harvey Grad. "There is a concern here that the Jewish community will be portrayed as the Grinch."

So, what is my reaction?

Continue reading "Which sentiment: P.C., Anti-Christian, or "to heck with it"?" »

Posted by Skip at 8:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

UPDATE 1

REALLY, she's not PC enough for us!

According to CNN and Yahoo, Gallaudent's Board of Trustees has weaseled out and determined that Dr. Fernandes is out:

"Although undoubtedly there will be some members of the community who have differing views on the meaning of this decision, we believe that it is a necessity at this point," the board said in a written statement.

So much for standing up for principles - and Dr. Fernandes's response?

Fernandes, who has been deaf since birth, had refused to resign, saying it would hurt the university to allow protests to determine the school's leadership.

Academia once again allows the inmates to run the place.  Perhaps, the Board ought to consider getting spine buck up training from Arizona Maricopa County's Sheriff Joe Arpiao.....

==========================================

Gallaudet University is located in the Washington DC area, and it is considered to be the premier secondary eduation facility for the deaf.  Well, there's been a whole lot of controversy going on about the qualifications of the new, incoming President, Dr. Jane Fernandes (the former Provost) , in which quite the number of students and facilty say that she is not "deaf enough".

Once again, political correctness and indentity politics have taken control.  Add to it, there is a significant movement among the deaf that believe that deafness is a natural state of being and not a handicap at all.  In fact, some decry situations where deaf parents are having their deaf children outfitted with cochlear implants so that they might hear.  This, they say, is an insult to the deaf community (tell that to a 18-wheel rig driver blowing the horn to a deaf person crossing right in front of him and he cannot stop).

Anyways, why the problem?

Demonstrations against Dr. Fernandes began last spring with students and faculty members saying she did not appreciate the primacy of American Sign Language at Gallaudet and in deaf culture and lacked leadership qualities.

Add to that the fact that she didn't start using ASL until she was 23.

And the students are angry that while they were engaged in an illegal protest (taking over land and buildings and not following the directions of law enforcement officials), the police brutalized them by spraying them with pepper spray.

Last spring’s protests were rekindled as the board gathered to meet here last week, and students occupied a building. The administration sent in campus security, and protesters accused the security police of using pepper spray, shoving them and choking one student. The problem, they said, was that the officers did not know sign language, and could not understand protesters when they insisted their protest was peaceful.

Right - students doing something wrong, they knew what was wrong, and now try to deflect that by blaming the officers.

Once again the mentality of the Tyranny of the Minority shows up.  Sorry, I don't buy this - another event where the majority (hearing folks) are supposed to know  and take into account a minority's handicap in dealing with them? 

Sorry students, while your University may be a closed little world, the larger one is not.  You may well succeed in keeping Dr. Fernandes out of her new post - academia can be manipulated that way.  And getting away with blaming the police for reacting to something they were doing.

However, my advice to the students is that they'd better start learning this lession now before it bites you - while most people will certainly go a little out of their way to accomodate you, most will only go so far before thinking that you are intruding on their rights.  This political correctness attitude (not deaf enough, or that others must always accommodate your lack of hearing) may be sufficient to make a big stink in an extremely small pond that is a single University, but in the ocean that is the wider world - not so much.

(H/T:  Phi Beta Cons with news from NYT )

Posted by Skip at 8:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The more I read about John Howard and his Administration's no-nonsense plain talk, my heart goes all aflutter (especially since I think the cough syrup I've been using to combat this dratted cough may be cracked up to more than it should be...so much for non-drowsy).

(H/T: LGF)

Straight talk from Australian Prime Minister John Howard, about the left-wing fifth column: Howard attacks left intelligentsia. (Hat tip: Aussiemagpie.)

PRIME Minister John Howard has launched a scathing attack on Australia’s left-wing intelligentsia, questioning its loyalty to the nation over the past decades.

In a speech delivered last night for the 50th anniversary of the conservative magazine Quadrant, Mr Howard said the left had a history of denigrating the nation and was now doing the same with the war in Iraq, describing Islamic terrorism as the new tyranny.

He said Australian universities were still breeding leftists and described pro-communists of decades past as “ideological barrackers for regimes of oppression opposed to Australia and its interests”, Fairfax reports today.

Mr Howard said the left was wrong in its view that the Cold War was an equal struggle between the ideologies of the United States and the Soviet Union.

“It became the height of intellectual sophistication to believe that people in the West were no less oppressed than people under the yoke of communist dictatorship,” Mr Howard said in his speech.

Preach it, Preacher, preach it!  Frankly, as Doug showed in his post about what is going on at URI, I think it is time to bring in the really bright, powerful flashlights and start finding out what's in the corners.....

Posted by Skip at 8:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

From the Rocky Mountain News:

The American Indian Movement and other activist groups plan to camp at Denver's Civic Center without permits this weekend to protest Saturday's Columbus Day parade.

They say they don't need a permit from "an occupying power" to use their own land.

State and Denver police said Monday they see things otherwise.

If the protesters choose to occupy Veterans Park next to the Capitol as planned, State Patrol officers will remove them, said Department of Public Safety spokesman Lance Clem.

Denver police said they will enforce an 11 p.m. curfew for any nearby property that falls under their jurisdiction.

"We hope that there's not a confrontation," said Glenn Spagnuolo, a member of the Transform Columbus Day Alliance, one of the protest organizers. "We hope that our assurances to the police that we will not harm the parade marchers will (let) us have this camp."

Continue reading "You may have your own reality, but not your own set of laws" »

Posted by Skip at 8:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

All over the world, we see world leaders criticizing us, both for our domestic policies as well as our foreign policies. Our media seems to delight in reporting almost any slight. What I keep thinking has been well captured over at Betsy's Page:
 

Why praise dictators who lecture us on freedom?

One Indian columnist gets it. Tavleen Singh, writing in the Indian Express wonders why people are praising dictators lecturing us on freedom who wouldn't allow a critic in their own countries to so publicly criticize them.

In the streets of New York I see a Muslim face every few steps. There are veiled Muslim women, Bangladeshi waiters, Arab voices and Pakistani taxi drivers. If the West is such a hateful place why are they here? There are plenty of rich, Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia where a good living could be made, are there not?

Speaking of Saudi Arabia, may I add that I find it hard to accept the noisy demands Muslims make to be allowed to build mosques in Western cities when countries like Saudi Arabia refuse to give similar rights to non-Muslims.

What sense does it make for those countries to talk of human rights and religious freedom when they do not believe in these concepts themselves?

We who in live free societies need to be more grateful for our privileges and more conscious of the importance of preserving them. In the funny, scary times in which we live there is a strange, new phenomenon whereby dictators lecture the world on human rights and political freedom and we listen and applaud as if this was the most normal thing in the world.

She's right. It's quite a bizarro world when people look to men like Ahmadinejad and Chavez for wisdom on freedom

Media bias in play in all this?  You bet!  How often do you see reports when we are getting slammed that actually report what the reality is in these other countries?  It is all well and good for folks like Chavez andAhmadinejad lambast the West and the US, but why won't the press tell us, at the same time and as prominently displayed, what happens to those people in those country that try to speak out about those leaders the way they speak out about us?

Do the words jail and torture come to mine?  And for the latter, we're not talking about cold rooms and loud music that have been debated in the Congress of late...we're talking REAL torture - physical injury, harm to family members in front of the accused, and the like.

Posted by Skip at 8:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

At TongueTied:

Homosexuality trumps the Bible -- but not the Koran:

"A police force was caught up in a freedom of speech row after its officers arrested an anti-gay campaigner for handing out leaflets at a homosexual rally.

South Wales police admitted evangelical Christian Stephen Green was then charged purely because his pamphlets contained anti-gay quotations from the Bible.

A spokesman for the police said the campaigner had not behaved in a violent or aggressive manner, but that officers arrested him because 'the leaflet contained Biblical quotes about homosexuality'....

The Met Police in London also investigated former Muslim Council of Britain leader Sir Iqbal Sacranie after he gave an interview saying homosexuality was harmful. However, no prosecution followed in that case.

Ah yes, we can thank Multiculturalism for this one, the philosophy that says all cultures are equal.

Except our own. 

Posted by Skip at 8:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

School board member Margo Weeks suggested that the board look into keeping all those students on who wanted to play varsity sports. This stance would effectively do away with cuts for initial varsity team rosters.

"I think kids figure it out after they sit on the bench for a couple of seasons." She noted that this way kids will effectively cut themselves from the teams, rather than having coaches select them to be removed.

Board members were divided on this issue. Though the general consensus was that in not having cuts it could be detrimental to coaching, as well as team effort overall.

It was also pointed out that this type of self removal could harm a students self esteem, if they were forced to remove themselves.

Posted by Doug at 8:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (2)

"They that live by the sword will die by the sword." Or, should I use "Those that live in glass houses..."?  This report from Boston.com kinda says it all.

PROVINCETOWN -- Town leaders here are holding a public meeting today to air concerns about slurs and bigoted behavior. And this time, they say, it's gay people who are displaying intolerance.

For those that do not live in New England (the Northeastern states in the USA), P-Town (as it is called) has been a gathering place for homosexuals for decades.  Sounds like some got a bit snippy, as the following points out:

Police say they logged numerous complaints of straight people being called ``breeders" by gays over the July Fourth holiday weekend. Jamaican workers reported being the target of racial slurs. And a woman was verbally accosted after signing a petition that opposed same-sex marriage, they said.

The town, which prizes its reputation for openness and tolerance, is taking the concerns seriously, though police say they do not consider the incidents hate crimes.

 Do I detect a certain double-standard?  Breeders?  Intolerance for another viewpoint?  Hate crimes.  Sorry folks, if the shoe was on the other foot, you bet the phrase "hate crime" would be flying and no one would argue with it.

By the way, I'm not real big on this hate crime deal.....seems too Orwellian (re: think of the book 1984 and Big Brother) and smacks of the Thought Police running amok when they get cranky.  It seems to be far too easy nowadays to label things at hate crimes - after all, we all have to think nice thoughts about each other and not offend, right?  Sorry, I am not going to be told what I have to be tolerant of and what I have to be accepting of - but this is the subject of a "rant in the future"...I digress.

Yes, emotions are high in MA over same-sex marriage ever since their Supreme Court ruled that their Constitution did not exclude it.  And they have also ruled (I believe) that a ballot petition for the body politic is also permissible (which, I am in favor of - let the people vote and decide how their society should be run.  Convince people on the merit of your ideas and not just in the court system).

Name calling, no matter what your position or stance is, never wins the discussion - it only shuts it down.  You may win that particular round, but you forestall the "convincing part" of that argument and may find that you've lost in the long term.

Generally, when you get people mad at you, they are less likely to agree with you.

Posted by Skip at 12:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

During lunch, I do tend to surf a bit.  A number of the blogs that I read are reporting this news (hat tip to Powerline and the article here) about the New York Supreme Court decision just handed down.  What they just ruled on was that the New York State Constitution has no inherent right to allow gay marriage - there is nothing that would force the court to rule such that NY (unlike MA) had to allow gays to marry.

Now for full disclosure: I am not for gay marriage.  First reason, is that my religious beliefs do not allow for it.  That doesn't mean that I am homophobic or that I am anti-gay (so don't start) - there is a difference between tolerance and acceptance.

That said, I agree with this part of the decision - "We hold that the New York Constitution does not compel recognition of marriages between members of the same sex," Judge Robert S. Smith wrote in the majority decision. "Whether such marriages should be recognized is a question to be addressed by the Legislature."

It is the last part that is the most important - that the Judiciary recognized that some topics are for the Legislative branch to listen to their voters, discuss, argue, and finally decide upon - not a limited number of judges sitting in a sterile courtroom. 

This is an issue of major sociological importance - it should be decided by society through its representatives.  It may result in a decision to which I would agree (as it has in almost all states by large margins where it has been allowed to be a ballot box decision) or it may not.  However, it will have been decided by the will and outlook of those governed and not by those that govern.

Posted by Skip at 10:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

What is the connection between Ann Coulter (a conservative not well liked by prickly Liberals everywhere) and with what are known as the Mohammad Cartoons (REALLY not liked by prickly Muslims everywhere)?

The Danish newspaper "Jyllands-Posten" created a controversy last year. The Editor felt that a curtain of silence was descending upon Danish society in discussing Islamic / immigration topics, especially when an author could not find illustrators for his book about Mohammad. In this democratic society where free speech is a given, he commissioned artists to comment on this trend of self censorship and begin an open debate. Knowing that it is important for society to be able to openly and honestly discuss any topic even if offensive to some, he wanted to get past the retort of “You are insulting Islam” that was silencing discussions. After all, who wishes to offend (buried by pejoratives), or die (like Theo Van Gogh, killed over his film that is critical over how Islamic women are treated)? Their work resulted in the “Mohammad Cartoons”.

Continue reading "Giving away Free Speech?" »

Posted by Skip at 9:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)