Canales News Briefs

July 25, 2004

"...Mr. Murdoch, Can a network that has five times

more conservative guests than progressive,

seriously call itself "balanced"?...

-Catty Parody Interview between Mark

Slackmeyer and Fox Chair Rupert

Murdoch, as carried in the "Doonesbury"

Comic Strip on July 24, 2004, and "drawn"

by Gary Trudeau

To All,

Given that the other networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN) usually have ratios of "progressive" to conservative of 20:1 (And some would say that Tucker Carlson turns all four cheeks too many times to qualify as a true conservative), Rupert Murdoch should be able to survive the spitwads and BB's of the Left's outrageous worldview.

In other news:

Quixotic:

After 3 days of incessant chuckling, one must tip one's cap to the rapier-like pen of Peggy Noonan. Only a writer of her talents can sum up in such few words the entire Kerry Spectacle to date.

In her Thursday (July 22) piece for the Wall Street Journal, Noonan highlights the importance of the Convention Acceptance speech in the following passage:

"...A week from tonight John Kerry gives his

acceptance speech. If it is good or great it

will be turned into a million commercials and

will be cut up and quoted so often on TV that

people who don't see it will think, a year from

now, that they did. If it is good or great it will

inspire a lot of memorable bad writing from

the newspaper poets-- The Knight of the

Woeful Countenance who dazzled the

crowd from the moment he rode forward

and unfurled his banner. If it's a poor or

merely average speech it will be a reason

Mr. Kerry lost if he loses...."

For those who give Broadway the same short shrift as they would Michael Bellesiles, Noam Chomsky, and E.L. Doctorow, "The Knight of the Woeful Countenance" alludes to a description of Don Quixote from the show "Man of La Mancha". From the play an Innkeeper hails in the following manner as Don Quixote enters while on his "quest"-

"...Hail, Knight of the Woeful Countenance,

Knight of the Woeful Countenance

Fare to the foe,

They will quail at the sight

Of the Knight of the Woeful Countenance!

Oh valorous Knight,

Go and fight for the right,

And battle all villains that be,

But oh, when you do,

What will happen to you

Thank God I won't be there to see!..."

Noonan's brilliance is thus reflected in her ability to reduce the entire Kerry Experience up to the Democrat Convention in Beantown, (complete with non-violent "peace protestors" rumbling on Boston Commons with sticks, stones, and fists, no less) to a Broadway chorus egging on a worn out knight to greater glory (Of course, so long as he pays the tab at the inn. The joke is on them- he's using their money.).

Now, in this age of confrontative politics, there are numerous weapons that both sides are using to rally their troops, while wounding the other side's morale. But as demonstrated from past races, it is often the short, sharp and quick riposte that the public remembers best in demonstrating who is agile enough to keep the streetcars running on time while being strong enough to whack the stuffings out of the enemies of the Republic. Reagan's comments about not making Mondale's "...youth and inexperience..." an issue, or Dick Cheney's quip about wanting to help Joe Lieberman enter into "...the private sector..." are two examples that conservatives well remember.

As such, Noonan's categorization may be the "set-up" for the best way to describe the Patrician Kerry yet. Any implication that Kerry is on a "quest for the unreachable star" not only has the potential to fire up the Republican base, but to label the Left's agenda in terms clear enough, and stark enough, to differentiate the two sides. For surely in this time of international terrorism, the war-fighting is well outside the facade of the Marques of Queensbury system that the internationalists wish to sustain. It is thus not sensible to run off and tilt at windmills. Hopefully the voter will see this simple fact in November.

Story basis can be found at:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110005383

Confession Is Good For The Soul (If Secularists

Will Admit to Having Souls):

Daniel Okrent makes a startling concession in the Sunday New York Times.

Public Editor Okrent finally admits the obvious-

The New York Times is a Liberal Newspaper. (Well, duh.).

Of course, this is not surprising to those who make it a point to know the sheep from the goats politically. But perhaps certain groups should re-examine their relationships if the Times has categorized them as described in the following:

"...But if you're examining the paper's coverage

of these subjects from a perspective that is

neither urban nor Northeastern nor culturally

seen-it-all; if you are among the groups The

Times treats as strange objects to be

examined on a laboratory slide (devout

Catholics, gun owners, Orthodox Jews,

Texans); if your value system wouldn't wear

well on a composite New York Times

journalist, then a walk through this paper can

make you feel you're traveling in a strange

and forbidding world

One can only feel the love with a worldview such as this.

But then, Okrent does not stop there in this spilling of the beans. He continues:

"...Start with the editorial page, so thoroughly

saturated in liberal theology that when it

occasionally strays from that point of view

the shocked yelps from the left overwhelm

even the ceaseless rumble of disapproval

from the right..."

He admits also that out of seven opinion columnists, only two are considered conservative (though they are partially redeemed in that they support gay unions and oppose parts of the Patriot Act). On the other hand, Okrent unabashedly maintains that opinion pages are opinion pages, and that a "...balanced opinion page is an oxymoron...". If this last is the Left's ultimate justification for selective coverage, then one can only wonder about their hypocritical complaints about Limbaugh, Hannity, and NRANews.com. It brings in, as well, their ulterior motives in supporting McCain-Feingold's hamstringing of political free speech.

Of course, these things simply confirm what others who are not of the Left have known all along. Okrent observes the following:

"...The San Francisco Chronicle runs an unin-

flected article about Congressional testimony

from a Stanford scholar making the case that

gay marriage in the Netherlands has had a

deleterious effect on heterosexual marriage.

The Boston Globe explores the potential

impact of same-sex marriages on tax revenues,

and the paucity of reliable research on child-

rearing in gay families. But in the Times, I

have learned next to nothing about these

issues, nor about partner abuse in the gay

community, about any social difficulties that

might be encountered by children of gay

couples or about divorce rates (or causes, or

consequences) among the 7,000 couples

legally joined in Vermont since civil union was

established there four years ago.

On a topic that has produced one of the

defining debates of our time, Times editors

have failed to provide the three-dimensional

perspective balanced journalism requires.

This has not occurred because of manage-

ment fiat, but because getting outside one's

own value system takes a great deal of

self-questioning..."

In essence, Bernard Goldberg was generally right in his commentary about media bias. What is more, Okrent is making the case that the ideal of an "objective journalist" is too difficult to obtain, at least in the ideological hamster cages of Manhattan.

But given that the Times itself is outrageously Liberal, and that only the Editorial Section of the Wall Street Journal is able to be conservative in outlook, reasonable alternatives for Big Apple news consumers lies with the New York Post.. Given that the Post is part and parcel of Mr. Murdoch's far-flung media organization, it seems that substantiation of certain conservative tenets, as well as the hope for equitable treatment, is being effected.

At the same time, it is the hallmark of unabashed Liberalism that it is not a "sin" to preach Liberal theology to the masses. After all, how else is one to proselytize and gain converts? Unfortunately for John Kerry's campaign, and his current attempts to turn to the center, the timing of the Okrent admission could not be worse. The Most Liberal Senator in the U.S. Senate (Given the careers of Ted Kennedy, Tom Harkin, Barbara Mikulski, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Dick Durbin, and a host of others, this is something to ponder) is being "outed" by a comparison to the New York Times as to what it is to be Liberal. If Kerry were to be asked as to whether he agrees with some of the proposals or positions of the New York Times (gun control issues would be a good start), he would be revealed to all Non-Manhattanites as to where he truly is in the political spectrum.

Critics and past opponents of John Kerry (William Weld, for a most recent example) are commenting that Kerry typically wants it both ways in a campaign. It will be up to the educated activist to hold Kerry's feet to the fire on where he stands on the issues, and how well those issues stand with organizations such as the Times, so that the electorate will be able to make the most informed choice this November. For gun owners and firearms rights activists, nothing less than a full exposition of Kerry's past and present positions will suffice.

Story basis may be had at, on a subscription

basis:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/weekinreview/25bott.html?
pagewanted=all&position=

Respectfully,

Anthony Canales

SFVMC-NRA