Terry Ann Online

Veteran Journalists Applying To Work At Lefty Talking Points Memo?

2009-07-12T21:28:00.003-05:00

The last two paragraphs from a NY Times article about lefty blog Talking Points
Memo raising a million dollars:

That represents a huge leap for a site that began as a one-man news blog
in the aftermath of the presidential election recount in Florida of 2000.
Since then, the site’s staff and visitor traffic have grown steadily, he said,
aided most recently by receiving the Polk Award in 2008 for its coverage
of the firings of United States attorneys during the Bush administration.

He said that in a week and half, he had received 200 applications for the
seven positions that have been announced, some from news veterans with
25 years of experience. “They are the best group of applicants I have ever
seen,” he said, adding that “when I see some of their applications, I think
I should be applying to them.”

What left wing media bias? A bunch of journos apply to a lefty blog but
conservatives are just paranoid about a biased news media!

Republicans are Just Tokens!

2009-07-12T16:48:00.005-05:00

This diary from the Daily Kos really has me mad:

So, yeah. As long as Republicans choose to elevate women based on the
hope that voters will be fooled into thinking that woman on ticket = policy
stances friendly to women, families, and working people, it is not only not
sexist to call that out for what it is, it's sexist not to.

Sadly, this is a question relevant not only to Palin; Republicans are not
averse to running this play again and again. So we're told by Republican
commentators that, in New Hampshire, Kelly Ayotte is a particularly strong
candidate because she's a mother of young children, that Ayotte, like Palin,
is a strong candidate because she's an outsider, because:

Like Obama, they don't have to talk the talk of change. They are change.

That is what Republicans want us to believe, that policies don't matter,
that tokenism produces meaningful change. We see it too with RNC chair
Michael Steele -- Republicans responding to the election of an African
American president by getting an African American spokesperson of their
own...and not changing a thing about the policies that lead on the order of
90% of African American voters to vote for Democrats even when Barack
Obama is not on the ticket.

If we pull back from criticizing the tokens Republicans throw up to stand
in the way of real change, we legitimize the strategy. In discussing -- mocking,
criticizing -- the tokens themselves, we of course must be respectful of their
humanity, and should always remember that the individual is not the real
issue. But unqualified is unqualified, unethical is unethical, bad on the issues
is bad on the issues, and it would be a disservice to the nation not to say so.

So when Democrats elect some from a minority community or a woman it is all
genuine and when Republicans elect someone with a diverse background it is just
"tokenism." I'm Hispanic and female so I must be a just another "token" for the
Republican Party. It doesn't matter that I don't agree with the Democrat Party, they
must dismiss me and others like me as a tokens. Maybe that is why the left hates
Gov. Palin so much because they portray all Republicans as old white males and
she is not. She must absolutely destroyed.

Well I'm not an old white male Republican and I'm no token either. Just because
the folks over at Daily Kos want to call you sexist and racist for not agreeing
with them doesn't make it true. Oh and also calling Gov. Palin and Michael Steele
tokens doesn't make me want to rush to the left side of the aisle either.

The Lie About American Prudishness

2009-07-12T14:44:00.007-05:00

I have heard this said several times and in various places (television and
in college) that Americans are prudish, especially compared to our European
friends. Are we more reserved than the Europeans? Perhaps. But in no means
are American prudes. The United States may have once been a puritanical
society but that is long gone.

Let me first just state the facts. Porn is a billion dollar industry in America.
I don't know if one can call a society that is so addicted to porn as prudish.
There are a few well known American celebrities who got their fame by making
sex tapes, for example, Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian. In a prudish society
they would treated like the plague but they are not. You can see them grace
(if you want to call it that) the covers of fashion magazines and they even have
their own television shows. Here is an interesting article on the pornification
of America.

Here is another fact that goes against the "Americans are prudes" argument:
40 percent of U.S. births are born out-of-wedlock. Having such a high number
of babies born out-of-wedlock doesn't sound like a symptom of a prudish society
in fact it suggests to me the opposite. Lots of people are having sex whether or
not they are married.

My third argument against the idea that Americans are prudes is simply a
subjective observation I've made. American media (movies, television, radio, etc.)
it is filled with suggestive material. It is hard to find a situational comedy that
doesn't have sexual innuendo and/or even stories about one-night hookups.
Movies are pretty explicit in sexual content especially the Wedding Crashers-
The Hangover- Step Brothers type films and they usually do well in the box office.
In a truly prudish society these movies would be met with scorn not laughter.

I have also heard it said that Americans are scared to talk about sex. Are we?
When we have a popular pastor in Dallas specifically talking about sex from
the pulpit, can we really say Americans have a fear about talking about sex?
If there is any place in this country were puritanical instincts exist that place
would likely be in the Church but I don't think that is the case.

Like I said earlier perhaps Americans are somewhat more reserved compared to
the French, Italians, and other European countries. But is that a bad thing? With
the percentage of French babies born to unmarried couples maybe Americans
shouldn't follow Europe's footsteps when it comes to this topic.

Celeb Pet Causes

2009-07-09T17:38:00.003-05:00

I heard this said the other day on the radio and I had thought about it
before but talk show host Dennis Prager put it succinctly. I'm paraphrasing
but his basic argument was the reason why celebrities tout their pet causes
whether it be global warming or animal rights because they basically live
meaningless lives. So to make themselves feel important they will talk
about some pet cause. Movie stars didn't have to do this. There was a
time when movies actually had moral lessons (I think Citizen Kane is movie
with a great a moral story) so they felt fulfilled in their work. They weren't
making raunchy or slasher type films. Everyone human looks for meaning.
Everyone has a God-shaped hole in their heart.

Ahmadinejad Made Him a Believer

2009-07-09T11:03:00.001-05:00

Interesting video here. Seeing pure evil with your own eyes can do that to you.

Miley Cyrus: Agnostic?

2009-07-08T14:02:00.011-05:00

I've become such an obsessive thinker that I can't let a silly pop song go.
I was listening to the song "The Climb" by Miley Cyrus and I think for
the most part it has a good message. The message being: Stay strong
through life's woes. However one line in the song bugs me! Here are
the lyrics and I italicized the line that bugs me:

I can almost see it.
That dream I'm dreaming, but
There's a voice inside my head saying
You'll never reach it
Every step I'm takin'
Every move I make
Feels lost with no direction,
My faith is shakin'
But I gotta keep tryin'
Gotta keep my head held high

There's always gonna be another mountain
I'm always gonna wanna make it move
Always gonna be an uphill battle
Sometimes I'm gonna have to lose
Ain't about how fast I get there
Ain't about what's waitin' on the other side
It's the climb

I guess the line bugs me because I often hear agnostics and atheists say,
"Hey don't worry about the afterlife just live your life for now." It's such
a hedonistic way to look at life. Do what you want today and don't concern
yourself about "what's waiting waitin' on the other side." As a Christian I
believe wrong choices have consequences in the material and spiritual
world. And if you believe in the Heaven or Hell it does matter what is
waiting on the other side.

I guess one can argue that the song is saying: Don't worry if you don't
win all the battles, it is the experiences you obtain from those battles that
matter. I can agree with that in some respects. However some battles
people choose to fight and they don't need to, for example, drug abuse.

Top Story

2009-07-08T09:37:00.001-05:00

Why is this story not the top story in every American news organization?

Nuts

2009-07-06T08:57:00.001-05:00

Listening to a C-SPAN Washington Journal call in show.
My goodness the callers are absolutely nuts!!!

Are Liberals Smarter Than Conservatives?

2009-07-05T15:58:00.012-05:00

I often hear the line of attack from liberals that they are smarter than conservatives.
Every once in a while you will see a study that "proves" liberals are smarter than
conservatives. In their minds they must be smarter since they hold such complex
positions. For example, when John Kerry said, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion
before I voted against it," there was so much nuance! So much brilliance! They will
argue that conservatives see things in absolutes (er, except for when it comes to
advanced interrogation techniques) so they must not be intellectually savvy.

I have one question: If liberals are so much smarter why has every institution
in which they dominate has been dumbed down? Let me explain. First there is the
liberal domination of journalism. Majority of journalist financially support Democrats.
I don't think anyone would argue that American journalism has become more
intellectual or substantive. In fact quite the opposite. For example, these past
few weeks of news has been dominated by a celebrity death. The news business
has become more infotainment than hard news. Not exactly a beacon of intellectual
depth.

Then there is academia. Teacher unions have a strong hold on our educational
system. Liberal bias can seen in the curriculum especially when it comes to
higher education. Yet, American teens continue to trail other developed countries
when it comes to science and math. The academic standards in our schools are
continually lowered. Hollywood has even exalted teachers who teach Bob Dylan
instead of the literary classics:

This brings me to me the next area where liberals dominate yet the product has
been dumbed down: The Arts. Every election year celebrities en masse vocally
support the Democrat candidates and every year movies and television just keep
getting more crass and silly. In fact the same celebrities who call conservatives
like George Bush and Sarah Palin dumb are probably hoping their next toilet
humor movie is a box office hit. Television programs and movies are written at
a 6th grade level.

Right now liberals dominate politics. They currently hold the executive and legislative
branch. And guess who just became the newest Democratic Senator? Al Franken.
Having him in the Senate is deplorable. He is known for saying vile things. Our
political discourse has become dumbed down through out the years with people
just spewing simple talking points. Having Franken in the Senate just legitimizes
the dumb downed portion of our politics.

If liberals are so much smarter than conservatives why do institutions known for
being liberal keep lowering their standards? I think I have a partial answer to why
liberal institutions continue to have their standards lowered. Post modern thought
is strong in liberal circles. Part of post modern thought is the notion that we shouldn't
judge others. It's all relative. Who are we to deem entertainment news less relevant
than other news? All art is the same and good even it is toilet humor. So what if Al
Franken was a mean-spirited comedian before seeking office, who are we to judge
him?

The Moral Arc

2009-07-03T10:08:00.004-05:00

I've been thinking about the quote from Martin Luther King Jr.
that President Obama used in a press conference about Iran.
The quote goes like this: "The arc of the moral universe is long,
but it bends toward justice." I don't know if I agree with that.
It depends on the context. If by universe it means the world that
you and I live in right now, I would disagree. There is so much
injustice in this world that goes on without punishment. However,
if the "moral universe" includes the afterlife (Heaven or Hell) then
yes I agree the moral universe bends towards justice. I guess it
depends on what your definition of moral universe is. I think part
of the reason why religion brings solace to so many is because we
live in an unjust world.

Liberal Goes To Conservative Christian University & Finds Out Students Are Human

2009-07-01T20:58:00.004-05:00

A secular liberal goes to a evangelical Christian university and guess
what he finds out? They are decent human beings. That is premise of
the book "The Unlikely Disciple" by Kevin Roose. Listen him talk
about his book:

Part 1

Part 2

Promo for the book:

Compare and Contrast

2009-07-01T09:24:00.008-05:00

Let us compare and contrast how the program "The Daily Show"
demonizes, in a comical manner of course, characters in the world
stage.

Ahmadinejad is "insane" (a mental condition):

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Irandecision 2009 - Sham, Wow

thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Jason Jones in Iran

From last night's episode Dick Cheney is a "dark figure" with a "monkey
heart" :

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Dick Cheney's Withdrawal Timeline

thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Jason Jones in Iran

And I'm guessing the monkey heart joke is trying to insinuate
since his heart surgery he now has animal parts thus making
him more callous.

Also a reminder The Daily Show has put demon eyes on President
Bush:

To recap:
Ahmadinejad is insane.
Former Vice President Dick Cheney is "dark figure" with a callous "monkey
heart." Former U.S. President Bush is a demon. GOT IT!

To be fair the show did juxtapose Ahmadinejad to Mini-Me
from Austin Powers recently. However, the villainous characters
in Austin Powers are comically evil and never end up doing any true
harm, even if they have bad intentions. It is hard to take
them seriously as evil. Dick Cheney gets labeled as Darth Vader
on the Daily Show, who is not comically evil and is a serious
threat in the Star Wars movies.

Neda

2009-06-29T17:43:00.003-05:00

Saw this on my way home:

Neda, originally uploaded by terryarendon.

Fox News Critic

2009-06-29T09:27:00.003-05:00

I was surprised to hear former Fox News anchor of "Fox News Watch" Eric
Burns had some critical words for his former employer on BookTV. He blames
the "contentiousness" in television news on Fox News. It is 32 minutes into this
video. I know people defending Fox News will say he's a disgruntled former
employee or out to sell books. However, I don't think that makes his criticisms
less valid.

Kos & Media Regulation

2009-06-27T15:11:00.005-05:00

Building off the post that I published last week, I would like to further note the
hypocrisy of the left when it comes to media regulation. Today I happen to be reading
some of the comments over at Daily Kos, a progressive blog site. For some reason this
comment stood out:

It's about the hanky wringing drama of "Keith and Rachel please stop
....." blech
If you don't like their shows don't watch and BTW, they are very
different shows. Yes, you will get attention with these diaries, and that's what
it's all about right?

I guess I was struck by the "If you don't like it, don't watch" attitude. It is a
dismissive attitude. And there lies the hypocrisy of the Daily Kos commenters.
How can the hard left be so dismissive about a "news" program on a cable news
network when they want more government regulation of our news media? This
dismissive attitude on Daily Kos is ironic because it is coming from a blog whose
founder once lamented about the profit margins of "Big Media." Just in case you
aren't aware when the left puts "Big" in front of something, that means they want
to regulate it. "Big Insurance" = government should universalize health insurance.
"Big Tobacco" = government regulation over the tobacco industry. "Big Oil" =
more government regulation over the oil industry. One diarist at Daily Kos openly
called for more government regulation over the media.

The commenters over at Daily Kos have an opportunity to speak truth to power
to someone who is involved in "Big Media," Keith Olbermann, and what do they do?
The vast majority (not all) simply dismiss the criticism over Olbermann's
irresponsible journalism. Hey my buddies over Daily Kos, if you want to call for more
government regulation of our news outlets then you need a much better response
to criticisms then "If you don't like it, don't watch it." Because if you all had your way
we might not have too many options when it comes to news sources.

Where Is This Barack Obama?

2009-06-22T18:47:00.009-05:00

During the 2008 presidential election then Sen. Obama showed such a moral
authority. Examples:

or

Where is this Obama that displayed such moral clarity and authority on
the campaign trail when it comes to Iran?

It Is Time For Some Media Reform

2009-06-21T13:23:00.011-05:00

It is time to reform our mainstream media. After seeing the coverage of the
very important story of the massive protests occurring in Iran, major American
news outlets have proven themselves mediocre (to put it kindly). Yes there are
some stand outs in our media but they are few.

First there were the protests on Twitter about the lack of coverage of the
events happening in Iran on CNN. Yesterday MSNBC ran re-runs while Tehran
burned. I noted on Twitter that Rachel Maddow began her last Monday with a
Gitmo story. ABC News sees nothing wrong with running an hour show about
health care from the White House and not allowing opposition voices. Our
mainstream media is an embarrassment.

I hate to make the issue of media reform political because it affects all
of us but here I go. Both conservatives and liberals are hypocrites when
it comes to reforming the media. A good portion of liberals want some
government intervention in our media but mostly stay silent while liberally
biased institutions like CNN, MSNBC, Time, Newsweek, New York Times (the
list goes on and on) stink up the place. Journalism schools are a bastion
of liberal ideology. Wanting government intervention is admittance that
there is a problem. But when conservatives complain about news organizations
not upholding journalistic standards, most liberals are either silent or even defend
the media. For example, yesterday when I mentioned Rachel Maddow of MSNBC
not leading with the Iran story was a big no-no I immediately got someone on
Twitter defending her. If one wants to reform the media business it doesn't help
when liberals defend irresponsible journalism. It is defending a very poor quality
of journalistic standards.

Liberals will argue that the mainstream media needs more regulation because
it is a public service. I agree that journalism is a public service but I disagree it needs
more government regulation. So if liberals believe that journalism is a public
service, why don't they get more outraged that nightly news anchors or New York
Times reporters are getting paid a ridiculous amount of money?
Television stations and newspapers are cutting jobs left and right (and mostly
from investigative reporting resources) but Keith Olbermann and Maureen Dowd
still make millions. Where's the class warfare when you need it? Teachers get paid
very little for providing a public service, why not a New York Times' writer?

Now on to conservatives. Conservatives are also hypocrites when it comes to
media reform. We claim the media is biased but then when liberals take about
government regulations we cry foul! I actually agree with conservatives that
heavy government regulation of media is against our First Amendment rights.
However, instead of immediately crying foul when liberals talk about government
oversight perhaps we should call for businesses to take more ownership and
responsibility of the product they produce. We also have to admit the status
quo when it comes to our media is not acceptable.

The Stoning of Soraya M.

2009-06-15T19:09:00.000-05:00

Looks like a powerful movie:

Axis of Evil is Exactly Right

2009-06-14T20:18:00.006-05:00

We as a nation must unequivocally call evil by it is name and we must do
so with no fear! I remember President Bush getting push-back for calling
Iraq, Iran, and North Korea "the axis of evil." An example:

Some of this criticism has been deserved. Bush does have a tendency
to eschew nuance in favor of black and white divisions. He also has a
tendency toward moral judgments that, whether correct or not, seems
presumptuous and arrogant to some.

From a BBC article back in 2002:

There is mounting international concern about President George W
Bush's grouping together of Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an "axis of evil".

Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov of Russia, which sees all three as falling
within its sphere of influence, questioned whether there was evidence to
label the three an "axis of evil".

This is, in fact, little short of declaring a war against the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea

North Korea Foreign Ministry

Former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright called Mr Bush's
comments "a big mistake".

After seeing this weekend's coverage of the rigged Iranan election and the
violence that ensued, the Iranian government is indeed evil. And anyone who
is afraid to use that word "evil" to describe these regimes should be ashamed of
themselves. We must be able to call things what they are. Iranians are being
oppressed by a government that steals elections and crushes basic human
rights. If we can't call that evil, what is?

God-sized

2009-06-14T16:22:00.004-05:00

In a very weird interview with young actor Shia LaBeouf, he seems
to be searching for something deeper but doesn't know where to look.
But in a Freudian slip perhaps he acknowledges where he needs to
look:

“I don’t handle fame well,” LaBeouf says. “Most actors on most days
don’t think they’re worthy. I have no idea where this insecurity comes
from, but it’s a God-sized hole. If I knew, I’d fill it, and I’d be on my
way.”

He admits he has a God-sized hole but right in the next sentence he says
he doesn't know how to fill it. Perhaps the only way one fills a God-sized hole
is to fill it with, er, God. Even the rich and famous have an instinctive need for
God.

Actually, the article starts with LaBeouf saying

"Sometimes I feel I’m living a meaningless life,” Shia LaBeouf says, “and
I get frightened.”

It reminds of Solomon who was rich and famous and found life meaningless.
Ecclesiastes 1:2-5

² "Meaningless! Meaningless!"
says the Teacher.
"Utterly meaningless!
Everything is meaningless."
³ What does man gain from all his labor
at which he toils under the sun?
⁴ Generations come and generations go,
but the earth remains forever.
⁵ The sun rises and the sun sets,
and hurries back to where it rises.

Solomon ultimately meaning can only be found in God.

Moral Equivalence of the Day

2009-06-13T15:45:00.002-05:00

I've been writing on my blog lately about moral equivalence. I found
another example. Enjoy:

Ahmadinejad: the George W Bush of the Middle East?of the Middle East?

Bill Maher proves my point

2009-06-13T14:12:00.002-05:00

I wrote this last week:

Ultimately the Left is all about OUTCOMES, it really doesn't manner
the means in which things get done.

Here Bill Maher argues that Obama needs to enact leftist policies and he doesn't
care how it gets done:

Patriotism and Jesus

2009-06-12T21:57:00.001-05:00

Interest read. It is important that we remember that Christianity does
not only exist in America. Christians come in all shapes and forms.

Why Is Bigotry Against Christians Widely Accepted in Hollywood?

2009-06-12T19:16:00.008-05:00

In the same mode of Saved! the entertainment business makes another film
whose sole purpose is to mock Christians. Here is the trailer:

I don't want to be thin-skinned but I don't know what else to call this but
pure and simple bigotry against Christians. Am I overreacting? If you
think I am overreacting let me ask you a questions: If someone made
a film that mocked Judaism, Hinduism, or Islam so crudely would you call it
bigotry? I think most people would call it bigotry. So why is bigotry against
Christians acceptable in Hollywood? I don't get it. Hollywood is always trying
to be politically correct and not wanting to offend people. But such sensitivity
is not granted to devout Christians. Don't get me wrong: I don't want
Hollywood to walk to on eggshells to appease Christians. I actually
finding it exhilarating that such a morally confused crowd such as Hollywood
have such an aversion to Christians. If we are a target it must because we are
making an impact. I want to make an impact.

I do find interesting that in this film they choose to target contemporary
Christian music. Hollywood has had a grip on our American culture for such
a long time. Right now the music industry is in decline. CD sales are on a
sharp decline. It is no longer the huge money maker it once was. However,
Christian music and radio stations are rising not waning in influence. My local
area keeps adding Christian stations, not subtracting. So they want to attack
the Christian music industry because it is successful.

Another thing that bothers me about the video is how much it misrepresents
Christians. I go to church, small groups and listen to Christian music and nothing
in that video remotely reflects the experiences I've had. I believe many
disagreements start with misunderstandings. With these type of bash Christian
films, I sometimes get the feeling they have no clue what they are talking or had
a brief encounter with an evangelical Christian and that formed their opinion of the
whole community. Hollywood likes to portray itself as open-minded and multi-cultural.
They think it is cool travel the globe. Perhaps, in all their open-mindedness and globe
trotting they can take some time to visit a church and talk to an evangelical Christian
and find out we are not as nutty as they portray us.

Yet Another Example

2009-06-08T21:54:00.002-05:00

Found another example of a moral equivalence argument:

Needless to say, it’s easy to recognize this sort of
barbarism as the torture that it is when you read
about it being done by North Korea (it appears that
the Bush administration and the DPRK were both
modeling themselves on the Chinese Communist
tactics from the Korean War).