News and Opinions - Blog Chow

Katie Couric’s ratings have been sliding ever since the over hyped first week she became an anchor. Now here come the excuses…

"I think a lot of that has to do with gender. I think she has to worry about a lot of things the male anchor doesn’t have to worry about, things like how she looks or what she is wearing."
— Sean McManus, CBS News and Sports President

Who has the problem here? They hired her because she’s a woman. Maybe if they hired an unbiased female they wouldn’t have to make excuses for why it hasn’t worked. It most likely would have worked. Get ready, because this is what they are going to say about Hillary Clinton. If you don’t like her it’s because she’s a women, not because she is a cold and calculated extremist liar.

I’m not going to watch Katie Couric because she’s color coordinated or because she has just the right amount of makeup on to cover up her liberalism. I’d watch her if I thought she and the news program were honest.

It’s amazing that the people who say they want equality will tell you they worry about makeup and outfits. What hypocrites. The ratings are already in the tank, so why be such hypocrites and play the game you claim to hate so much?

You’re already getting the liberal slice of the pie on these evening shows, so Katie could do without trying to add to it with those perfectly timed subtle facial expressions. The bias used to be somewhat subliminal. Now it’s so transparent where the political bend is to anyone who follows the news. A whole lot of people knew about Katie’s bias before she ever did her first news broadcast. She couldn’t even hide it on a fluff program like the ‘Today Show.’

The same people who cry about not getting the ratings because she is a woman are the ones who used that very fact to get all the publicity they could out of her becoming a female anchor. If women make up at least 50% of the population, just who is oppressing her? You’re not supposed to ask those kinds of questions.

It’s ironic that so many of the things that rabid liberals stand for are the very reasons why some women aren’t taken seriously. Not to mention I remember seeing her fawn over guys on the ‘Today Show’ who were young enough to be her grandkids, but we are supposed to take her seriously? I’d like to see her reaction if a guy did that sort of thing.

This is where "freedom of choice" comes in. You don’t have a right to be liked as a news anchor any more than the Dixie Chicks have a right to complain that they are having trouble selling out their concerts. People like Katie say this Country was founded on dissent, when it was actually dissent about the lack of freedom. Here’s to freedom and dissent!!

There are websites that have people giving the news who strip while they do the broadcast. Sadly, some actually do a better anchor job than Katie Couric. I’m not just saying that because they are more pleasant to look at. Yes, I watched it a couple times for research purposes, but I haven’t seen one of those broadcasts in about 4 years. The point is, most people don’t watch the news because of how the anchor looks. Some of these news sites like CNN and MSNBC have tried to go the more youthful news route to the 40 something group, and it hasn’t helped their ratings any. People generally watch those kinds of shows for the news. Preferably all the news, not just stories that push their ideologies.

I don’t know if it’s still true, but I’ve heard where people who are on juries read newspapers with various parts clipped out as to not influence them in their cases. The news these days is much like a newspaper that has bits and pieces cut out. At the least you need to go to page 20 to read what should be on page one. Since most people scan headlines and stories, this is where you need news people with integrity. Otherwise you can really paint a different picture from what is actually happening. It’s like having to read the fine print to get the important details. The way it is now, you get some facts and a steady stream of accusations and insinuations. When they are proven wrong, you get a tiny fraction of the time devoted to exonerating someone falsely accused. That’s if it’s even reported at all. You get a lot of anonymous sources who probably don’t even exist. Sometimes you get forged papers just before a Presidential election. Sometimes you get improperly “called” states during a Presidential election while people are still voting… How did we ever survive without network news?

Let’s not forget about the sensationalism. If you thought the Duke Lacrosse players were guilty of rape the first couple months after the story broke you were in the majority, even though the evidence strongly suggested otherwise early in the case. The media is judge and jury, and they try to influence the public into becoming their lynch mob… Sadly, some people are easily persuaded. For some it’s simply a matter of putting trust in the wrong people.

"The media may be losing some patience, but none of us at CBS are losing patience."
— Sean McManus, CBS News and Sports President

Anything for the "cause." If this weren’t a flaming liberal she would have been sacked within the first 2 months. Whether it’s an entertainer or someone in the media, the powers that be stick by liberals as long as humanly possible, even when they lose a bundle on them. It’s ideology first, profit second, and integrity nowhere to be found.

It was just a couple weeks ago Katie Couric was complaining about a briefing at the White House she was invited to:

"And yet, the meeting was a little disconcerting as well. As I was looking at my colleagues around the room — Charlie Gibson, George Stephanopoulos, Brian Williams, Tim Russert, Bob Schieffer, Wolf Blitzer, and Brit Hume — I couldn’t help but notice, despite how far we’ve come, that I was still the only woman there." That meeting was a reality check for me—and not just about Iraq. It was a reminder that all of us still have an obligation to ask: Don’t more women deserve a place at the table too?

First of all, it is the elitist liberal media who is hiring the men to these positions. Isn’t it the liberals who claim to be for women, minorities, the poor and so on?… But I will defend them in as much as I don’t believe there are as many females who aspire to be news anchors as men. I just don’t believe they do. So I don’t know who you can blame for that. It’s hard to blame other’s for any occupation you "might" have been able to achieve if you had attempted it. It’s hard for a true liberal to accept, but men and women don’t always have the same interests and aspirations. Why aren’t there as many male nurses as female? If you have a pool that is 90% women and 10% men, should men make up 50% of the equation? Doesn’t seem so to me.

Katie didn’t have a problem accepting her position even though there were many women out there who were far more qualified. There are many women journalists and reporters. There are cable newscasters and most of your local news shows have female anchors as part of the team. The truth is Katie simply did not deserve to beat most of those people out. She got the job because she was something of a celebrity. Yet somehow she has the gall to point the finger at others.

Which of the men at that table does she feel should not be there? Who should step aside and let someone else in there? Why doesn’t she take the lead and step aside and let someone more deserving take her place? Not only that, but since her ratings are about as bad as they can be, she is lucky she was even invited. If people were invited based on performance, she would have been left out of the little inner circle altogether.

Out of those names she mentioned I see only one person who I wouldn’t consider to be a liberal. Where are the conservatives? Why aren’t they equally represented? There were obviously zero conservative women news people at the table. Where does it end? Was there an equal representation of short people and tall people? How about skinny and fat people? Was each ethnicity and religion equally represented? Again, who is doing the hiring? You got it, those who are running the liberal media. How can all this happen in such a liberal utopia? Katie can fool some people with her hypocrisy, but her low ratings are proof that she’s not fooling everybody.

I suspect at some point Katie will decide to move on to "other things." Possibly they will promote her for her poor performance, ala Howard Dean. One thing’s for sure, they will never admit the real reasons behind her failure.

Leave the key in my feed and we can finally be together forever…

You have to check this out if you haven’t already seen it. It gets a lot better than this picture. There’s a video link on this local6.com page. I wouldn’t have believed it myself if I hadn’t seen it. I still don’t quite believe it. This African lion and the woman who saved it from abuse are described as being involved in “long, affectionate kisses and hugs.” The lions handler said “It is amazing to see an animal like that be so sweet and affectionate. This hug is the most sincere one that I have received in my life.” I believe I’m jealous. It really does look sincere and passionate! Go figure…

The photo of the tearful President George W. Bush was from a ceremony for Medal of Honor winner Marine Cpl. Jason Dunham yesterday (January 11, 2007). Dunham was killed when he jumped on a grenade to save members of his Marine patrol in Iraq.

Contrary to the opinion of some, this doesn’t look like somebody who enjoys sending soldiers to their death. Rather, of someone who has calculated the costs of inaction. I personally think that, if anything, he has under calculated, rather than over calculated the cost of inaction. It was a decade of disregarding the dangers in the world that brought about the 9/11 attacks.

——————

“I think what President Bush has decided to do is both courageous and correct. It strikes me, in listening to the critics emerging already, that the President can’t win either way. Before he changed directions, he was being criticized. And now that he’s changing directions, he’s being criticized.”
– Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on the President’s decision for a troop surge in Iraq

Merry Christmas From Blog Chow!

Merry Christmas and best wishes for 2007 from your favorite blog guy. May peace, love and happiness be in abundance. God Bless!

When the Republicans find out there’s a pervert or racist in the party they clean house, sometimes even before all the facts come out. When the liberals get one they usually defend their actions. So why is it the liberals are the first to point at the other side? Simply because they get away with it. Think about Senator Robert Byrd’s racist Ku Klux Klan history and the fact that it was Abraham Lincoln and the Republicans who ended slavery. How much more hypocrisy do you need since it’s always the Republican party who is trashed when it comes to the subject of race? What have the liberals done other than point the finger and use the issue to their advantage? Again, they have been allowed to get away with it. Republicans go on defense while the liberals constantly attack, often when they are the most guilty.

How many times have the liberals used social security as an issue against conservatives? When President Bush tried to make progress on it the dems said there was no hurry. Then election time rolls around and suddenly it is an issue again. Instead of showing the hypocrisy, Republican candidates go on the defense yet again.
===
A republican administration spying on terrorists is used as a scare tactic on the uninformed. This is more proof that many liberals are only concerned with political gain and the actual weakening of the Country. The truth is we lost our privacy long ago. Bank cards, supermarket cards, ez pass, e-mail, surfing the internet, phone records and more are being logged… What privacy do you expect to lose by allowing surveillance of terrorists? It is common practice for police to spy on citizens suspected of drug dealing, bookmaking and various other activities. Should terrorists be given a pass? Explain why. This hypocrisy should be brought up whenever the subject of spying on terrorists or any kind of national defense issue comes up. These guys are not credible whatsoever when it comes to national security or the privacy of American citizens.

These are a few examples of the hypocrisy which just doesn’t adequately get brought up during the election campaigns. There are so many false accusations being defended against, the relevant facts of who is better able to serve the people wind up taking a backseat. The politicians who are falsely being smeared need to stick to these things and hammer them home until people get it. The liberals hammer home misinformation until it becomes accepted as fact, so the actual facts should be driven home until people don’t forget.

The hypocrisy of their political opponents and the party in general should be printed on all campaign material. Forget about the boring bios that nobody reads anyway. Sadly, being right and sincere often just isn’t enough to win elections since most people aren’t going to spend the time to research those facts, which means most won’t find out until it’s too late. They aren’t going to find out unless the few decent politicians out there stop defending themselves from false attacks and start playing some offense and showing the continual hypocrisy of the extreme left.

Between “milking” it for all the publicity he could get and his hour quickie meeting, this comes as absolutely no surprise whatsoever. I knew when I heard he was going to have a “private meeting” with Tara Conner that he wouldn’t fire her. Do you think Donald Trump is going to spend an hour alone with a Miss USA contestant of questionable moral fiber and not determine that she is a good person?

How can you tell after one hour that someone is really a good person? Is it that easy? I’m surprised anyone gets divorced if you can tell something like that in one hour. Why have trials when you can just talk with someone for an hour?

Does anybody really care about these pageants anyway? Why even publicly bring up her private life if you aren’t going to do anything about it? I think that is a good question, if I do say so myself. Trump is not the real deal. He’s no terminator, he just plays one on ‘The Apprentice.’

The photo sums it up pretty well. Recommendations are great, especially when they come from a brilliant man like James Baker, however they should be taken with a grain of salt. At approximately 110 years old Baker may be suffering from dementia or some such thing. The way this report is being touted I’m starting to wonder when these guys were elected President. There are actually reasons we have a President. As President you get information that few, if anyone else has or should have. You are hopefully able to put a conflict like Iraq into perspective with what’s going on in the rest of the world. One wrong move could adversly affect strategy in other areas.

You could seek advice from 10 brilliant men on a complicated subject and get 10 different answers. It would be wise to weigh what they all have to say, but in the end the person with whom the responsibility has been given should be the one who decides the course. Not to mention that we have military commanders who should have a better idea how to win a war than bystanders. That is, unless the consensus has become that of John Kerry in regards to our military.

The big problem with this resolution, which you can download here is that it seems to ignore victory as an option. This only spells out how to get out with your tail between your legs and not officially lose. Can you say politics? How far we have fallen.

When negotiating with countries like Iran and Syria are part of the deal, recommendations are immediately flawed. Asking murderers to the table should not be an option, especially when we are talking about the future of other countries. To ask them and not Israel is even stranger. There may be an ulterior motive to show Iran won’t cooperate or can’t be trusted, but who doesn’t already know that? Anything that buys them even more time is dangerous.

All this distracts from the real issues with Iran and Syria and continues them on a path that should have been stopped before now. It is the cat and mouse game we played with Saddam Hussein all over again. That game is probably what caused this path to begin with. Everyone now knows they get a million warnings like a little child and they push their luck to the very end. That wouldn’t have happened with Ronald Reagan. Remember Moammar Qaddafi? He was the big terrorist back in the day. It took one near miss which killed Gaddafi’s daughter and 36 others to put him out of business. I don’t think Qaddafi even spoke for about 20 years after that. It’s an imperfect world and that deadly attack probably saved thousands of innocent lives.

Much of what is in there is redundant anyway. Some of it is not far from what I am sure they are trying to do anyway, just not necessarily with a public time-line. It’s much of the same debate only packaged nice with Christmas bow on it. It is obviously not good to give public time-lines when fighting a war. How dumb do you think these guys are? The terrorists might be twisted, but not always that dumb.

You hear some saying “more troops” and some saying “less troops.” If you withdraw without achieving your objectives - you lose. If you send more troops you will have more casualties to our troops. Victory might be achieved quicker, but you will have a lot more targets. Isn’t that the problem here? There is no doubt about victory, unless you have no faith in the military. The problem is we cannot stomach losses so we fight so carefully that it drags on and on.

I see 3 basic options in this. One is to cut and run. The result of that is leaving the problem and consequences for future generations to suffer with. The second option is to turn up the heat, not only in Iraq, but other places as well. With that option you will gain respect, win more quickly and decisively, but suffer more losses in the short term. The third option is to fight a nice fight with minimum troops and take many years to complete. With that option you will lose many more lives, only at a slower rate. With the first and third options you will also encourage our enemies that they can win. The only thing that encourages terrorists more than a perverted view of religion is the belief they are winning. Containment and appeasement are a terrorists best friend.

The best option, without a doubt is to stop tiptoeing around and to hit our enemies with the force we have been led to believe in the past that the United States of America possesses. Enemies have been defined in the past to include terrorists and those who help and harbor terrorists. My guess is we will continue on with the option of minimal troops and fighting nice. If pressure gets too great we will resort to the cut and run option or what is now referred to as “redeployment.” Hopefully for the sake of free people everywhere that does not happen. Hopefully those who are serving now and those who have given their lives have not done so in vain.

————

In all my time in Washington I’ve never seen such smugness, arrogance, or such insufferable moral superiority. Self-congratulatory. Full of itself. Horrible.
William J. Bennett

One unanswered question continues to torment my mind in the global warming debate. What is the proper temperature for planet Earth? Even if we assume that the Earth’s temperature has risen 1 degree over the past century as it is commonly claimed, was the temperature from a century ago the right one? I say assume since they did not keep extensive worldwide records like we do today.

The activists seem to think we can adjust the Earth’s temperature like a thermostat. Who decides how far we should go with it? Do we all get a vote? We know we have had ice ages and global warming to end the ice ages. Obviously we have had every temperature in between. Out of all the choices can we really know which one is optimal? How did the planet survive and rebound from the great extremes of the past?

If one degree off of the proper temperature can throw the planet into turmoil, it seems we need to be very careful. Lets assume people have caused a rise in the temperature of the Earth. Since there have always been fluctuations how do we know how much we have raised it? What if we’ve created an extra 2 degrees, but the actual temperature has risen by only 1? Doesn’t that mean that the planet is actually cooling off and human activity is preventing a drop in the temperature? Could overreacting swing things the wrong way and send us towards an ice age? Could it be humans are saving the planet from global cooling instead of destroying it with global warming? If we are going to buy into the man-made global warming logic these are questions that need to be answered.

Aren’t there more uninhabitable places on the planet because of extreme cold than extreme heat? There aren’t too many places people can’t live in because it’s too hot. As long as there is water to drink and some kind of shelter people can survive in most warm climates even without air conditioning. There are a lot of cold places where humans can’t realistically survive even with modern technology. Without heat and winter clothing much more of the planet would basically be uninhabitable. How do you grow crops in ice? Seems warmer does have some advantages for the survival of a growing world population.

I still have more questions. If we are causing terrible hurricanes, who is causing the enormous hurricane taking place on Saturn? That thing dwarfs anything we’ve ever seen. Who is driving the gas guzzling vehicles there? Who was driving them back in the ice age that caused global warming to come along?

What happened to all the dire predictions about the 2006 hurricane season? That was supposed to be proof of global warming. It fizzled out badly to the disappointment of the global warming enthusiasts. Does that mean the theory was wrong or is it another “just wait till next year?” Would anyone except for meteorologists and weather buffs even remember hurricane Katrina if it never made landfall? Did global warming cause it to seek out a direct strike on New Orleans?

When I was a kid I used to wonder what would happen when it was really cold out if everyone opened their windows and doors and let the heat outside. It didn’t take too long to realize that probably wouldn’t work too well. However, if heat is actually being trapped should people be allowed to heat their homes? Not only is using various fuels contributing to the greenhouse problem, but the heat generated must be raising the temperature to some extent as well. I’m trying to use the logic of the global warming theorists. Playing by their rules, if you will.

There are so called experts who say it’s already basically too late to save the planet. Some, such as Stephen Hawking are even saying we should make plans to leave the Earth and inhabit other planets. Let me know how that one works out. I’ll put my money on giant outdoor air conditioners before I will a mass evacuation from Earth. For some reason I just had a vision of Cosmo Kramer and a giant rubber ball filled with oil. Not sure if I’m still allowed to make Seinfeld references. The outer-space escape would be an ironic end to life on Earth. Imagine watching environmental extremists piling into rocket-ships that get 20 inches to the gallon. At least some of us will die laughing.

What about sunspots and volcanoes and the like? We know they can have a major influence. Can we accurately predict their effect on the weather over the next few decades? I hope it’s more reliable than this year’s hurricane predictions. I’m still looking for an accurate 5 day weather forecast. What if we set the earth’s thermostat too much one way or the other and don’t properly compensate for those factors? What about nuclear winter? So many theories, so little time. Meanwhile we’re frying like ants under a magnifying glass and the sky is falling…

The honeybee is about to become a big tool in the war on terror. These little guys can be trained in 10 minutes to detect bomb materials. What an incredible thing. They will assist the military as well as aid in airport security… There is one way they could make it even better. If they get the bees to sting the person carrying the bombs. This would be a real deterrent.

Terrorists might be brainwashed into believing murder/suicide is a great thing, but these killers are cowards by nature. I have never heard of a brave terrorist. They do two things - they ambush and they hide. That’s it. The thought of getting stung by a couple hundred bees would no doubt be one of the best deterrents you could find. That won’t happen though. We fight nice wars now. That’s why they drag on and why nobody is afraid of provoking us anymore. But you do have to love those bees!

How many poor people does 36 million dollars help out? That’s what Hillary blew on a campaign that even this New York Times article describes as containing only token opposition. Wait till you hear where the money went!

The New York Times article reveals that she bought more than $13,000 worth of flowers, spent $27,000 for valet parking and forked over $800 for just one month’s worth of credit card interest. Is this someone fiscally responsible enough to run the Country? Make sure you don’t waste any time reading the article, because these kinds of stories tend to have a short shelf life in the liberal media. I’m actually surprised it was even allowed to be published by the New York Times.

Maybe Hillary should have hired Oprah Winfrey as her campaign adviser. She could have showed her how to donate 30 million and get a billion dollars worth of positive publicity out of it. But then Hillary has always gotten the positive publicity for free. Why would we expect anything else from her? She can promise you the world with other people’s money, but look what she does with the money she gets her own hands on. I wonder what she would do if she didn’t have to account for certain expenses?

Hillary spent $17 million dollars on advertising. Why? Hillary got more free positive publicity from the media than her opponent was able to pay for. Did Hillary have an opponent? Do you remember the name? I don’t remember who it was. This is a country where anyone can become President? If you aren’t a media favorite you can’t possibly have enough money to even have a level playing field. That’s just for the Senate. Forget about becoming President.

Let’s see… There’s another $1.1 million to a longtime pollster/adviser. There’s $930,000 to a longtime communications strategist. There’s seems to be good money at being a “longtime” anything in the Clinton camp. Then there’s a consulting firm that got $200,000, but now we are getting into chump change. What could a poor person do with a measly $200,000?

This just seems like more of the same from another self serving politician. A whole lot more of the same. How many poor people could all that money have helped? She blows the whole wad and waits for the money to come rolling back in. She’s entitled because she is Hillary Clinton and you aren’t. How many people could have been helped with their health care woes? What an absolute waste. So much for campaign finance reform. What a joke that turned out to be.

This is the typical “liberal” way with these fat cats. They talk about how we need to do more for the poor or the environment, but they themselves live high off the hog and don’t practice what they preach. Do as they say and not as they do. The truth is they need poor people to win elections. They promise the world but never actually fix the problems. That’s why eight years of the Clintons didn’t produce the health care reform they have been talking about for the last 25+ years.

The only thing they can do for the poor is raise minimum wage 50 cents. Tell me, is someone raising a family on minimum wage no longer poor with a 50 cent raise? Of course after the raise, they’ll try to raise your taxes. They give someone 50 cents while at the same time they use the other hand to pick their pocket. It’s frustrating that some people are so easily conned. But Hillary Clinton thanks you for your support!

~~~~~~~

“Donors, like voters, increasingly expect candidates to exercise fiscal discipline.”
– Mark McKinnon - adviser to Senator John McCain

(note: what was McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform for other than to silence freedom of speech?)

“In a race that was virtually a shoe-in for Hillary, she somehow managed to outspend her opponent by a 7 - 1 margin. Too bad Hillary did not have the foresight to put her fundraising machine to a better use like raising more money for Congressional candidates that needed help rather than blowing a shameful 36 million on her shoe-in re-election campaign.”
– The liberal Democratic Daily

“We’re not in this business to make consultants rich. The wasting of money — it drives everybody crazy. She’d better get a handle on this if she is going to run for president.”
– A fund-raiser for Hillary Clinton who was granted anonymity(by the New York Times) in order to speak freely about the campaign.