Wednesday, December 26, 2012

Wed 26th Dec Todays News

Happy birthday and many happy returns Ann Thompson. Born on the same day as the first recorded performance of King Lear. Remember, birthdays are good for you. The more you have, the longer you live.

===

December 26: Boxing Day in Commonwealth countries; St. Stephen's Day(Western Christianity); Twelve Holy Days begin (Esoteric Christianity);Kwanzaa begins (United States)
Babe Ruth

===

Events

[edit]Births

[edit]Deaths

[edit]Holidays and observances


===

NO SURPRISES

Tim Blair – Wednesday, December 26, 2012 (1:13pm)

A survey of the Canberra press gallery reveals: 
Julia Gillard’s “mysoginist” jibe against Tony Abbott has been ranked the Most Memorable Moment …
Eight of the pundits nominated the smooth introduction of the carbon tax as the year’s Best Achievement. 
The survey of 20 press gallery members was conducted prior to Wayne Swan’s announcement that a budget surplus was unlikely in 2012/13: 
While most of those surveyed predicted the Budget would stay in the red, seven Gallery reporters did predict he would deliver a surplus next May. 

===

DOWN WITH UPRIGHT

Tim Blair – Wednesday, December 26, 2012 (6:14am)

A curious line from Ben Oliver’s review of the new Range Rover in December’s edition of Wheels: 
The old car was as bluff and upright as the white cliffs of Dover, but that’s no longer socially or environmentally acceptable. 
Fascinating. Apparently the rake of your car’s windscreen and grill now determines social worth. Readers are invited to confess their current automobile acceptability angles. 

===

MUSICOLOGIST OF DEATH

Tim Blair – Wednesday, December 26, 2012 (5:32am)

Systematic musicologist Richard Parncutt wishes for harmony: 
I am Australian, living in another country, waiting for “reconciliation” to really happen so that I can be proud of where I come from. 
Parncutt, who currently pursues his interests in systematic musicology at Austria’s University of Graz, also wishes for a global wealth tax and the banning of Page 3 girls. And – as Jo Nova andAndrew Bolt have already observed – he wants to kill global warming deniers: 
The death penalty is an appropriate punishment for influential GW deniers …
GW deniers … are already causing the deaths of hundreds of millions of future people. We could be speaking of billions, but I am making a conservative estimate …
If a jury of suitably qualified scientists estimated that a given GW denier had already, with high probability (say 95%), caused the deaths of over one million future people, then s/he would be sentenced to death. The sentence would then be commuted to life imprisonment if the accused admitted their mistake, demonstrated genuine regret, AND participated significantly and positively over a long period in programs to reduce the effects of GW (from jail). 
Nice of him to give us the option. (Incidentally, if killing “future people” is a capital crime, it would be interesting to hear Parncutt’s views on abortion.) Besides his issues with people who don’t agree with him about the weather, Mr Music also has problems with fellow academics: 
During the 1990s I (an Australian) applied for professorships in several different Canadian, American, British, German and Austrian universities without success. In most cases, the person who was offered the job was clearly less qualified that I am … 
Maybe they just knew the difference between “that” and “than”. But we shouldn’t be too hard on thisteachy preacher, since he’s apparently a victim of racism: 
In recent years, I was repeatedly attacked by workplace colleagues with the apparent intention of forcing me to leave my department. The stated reasons were generally arbitrary, exaggerated, misleading or invented; the real reasons were presumably my cultural and disciplinary Otherness, coupled with envy of my research record, my interdisciplinary and international mobility, and my desire to promote transparency and high academic standards. To my astonishment, other colleagues not only failed to defend me – sometimes they even sided with the attacker/s. While many people were unsure what exactly was going on, they were also generally unwilling to be informed. Again, this is a subject statement, and readers may reasonable suspect me of being a bit paranoid. But there is plenty of good objective sociological research on academic mobbing, which – from a psychological or sociological point of view – is closely related to racial discrimination. 
Still, our former Melbourne boy (who occasionally flies home) is happy in his new country, where he’s lived since 1998: 
I do not wish to discourage people from visiting Austria. Compared to most other countries, and even Western countries, Austria is a peaceful place – there is relatively little violence. It is very unlikely that you will experience a physical threat of any kind … 
Unless you disagree with him about climate change.

===
Jenna Louise Coleman is not just pretty. She is brilliant and when I didn't see how Dr Who could go forward .. now I can't see how it could fail to be great .. 
File:Doctor Who The Snowmen poster.jpg
===
The arguments are known and Jewish peoples are aware of them. You might not agree with their position but it is a valid position. I am happy to discuss it without violence. But history shows the claims that violence has been used against Jewish peoples is truth. From a people whose population was one sixth the Roman empire they now struggle to populate a tiny nation. Yet they value family, education and culture. I am proud to have friends and business associates who are Jewish, may they prosper. But I would love to share the revelation that God made which for all time answered prayer and conquered the devil.

===
Probably good to not look like an escaped mental patient .. if you can't remember your identity .. - ed
Wrong man held, drugged at Graylands Mental Hospital
A MAN was given anti-psychotic drugs after he was mistaken for an escaped Graylands patient, having been picked up by police and detained at the hospital.
The shocking incident occurred earlier this month and authorities did not realise they had made the blunder until after they gave the innocent man a cocktail of powerful drugs.

The man fell ill after being given the drugs and needed hospital treatment.

An investigation into the incident is now underway.

The series of events started after a patient at the hospital left without permission in mid December.

Police were called to help locate the patient and several days later, a man with the same description of the escapee was brought back to Graylands by police where he was wrongly identified by hospital staff as the runaway patient.

The man was subsequently given a batch of antipsychotic drugs but it caused an adverse reaction and he was treated overnight in hospital.

The “real” missing patient eventually returned to Graylands.

Health authorities and WA Police have both launched their own investigations into the incident.

WA Mental Health Minister Helen Morton has reportedly apologised for the blunder and labelled the incident a “dreadful mistake.”
===

Media Bias and the Erosion of First Amendment Ideals



By Matthew M. Hausman
The role of the media in a constitutional democracy is not only to provide information, but also to monitor the affairs of government by exposing excess, hypocrisy and corruption at the highest levels. Indeed, the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of the press to facilitate this function. But the media can only fulfill its mission if it rises above the partisan and maintains a bright line between objective reportage and editorial comment.
It cannot do so when reporters’ biases affect their presentation, when opinion is stated as fact or when information at odds with the publisher’s views is distorted or suppressed. Sadly, mainstream reporters seem to have little use for journalistic objectivity when it conflicts with their editorial prejudices or political allegiances. Rather than simply report facts, the media often shapes them in order to influence public opinion; and its partisan predilections are evident in the way it covers all news, from domestic affairs to foreign policy.

The press has been referred to as the “Fourth Estate” since at least the eighteenth century to acknowledge that it was separate and apart from the “Three Estates of the Realm,” but no less important for the proper functioning of society. In America, the appellation signified its independence from the three branches of government, which would enable it to act as an impartial observer and report facts at odds with official government positions. But journalists today are frequently blinded by ideological loyalties that undercut their independence and neutrality. News reports are often skewed to favor specific candidates, elected officials and political agendas, and unbalanced diatribes are frequently presented as objective analysis. Thus, content published by the traditional media outlets often resembles public relations copy more than news.
During the recent U.S. election, the mainstream media was transparent in its support of Barack Obama and did its best to depict Mitt Romney as unflatteringly as possible. It downplayed Mr. Obama’s dismal economic policies, ignored his crippling divisiveness, glossed over his apologetic treatment of Islamists, and excused, misreported or altogether avoided commenting on his myriad foreign policy blunders. The failure to critically probe the terrorist attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya offered but one of the most glaring examples of the media’s bias – although by no means the only one.
Though the fallout from Benghazi continues, the media’s coverage has been marked from the beginning by a reluctance to investigate facts unfavorable to the administration and a tendency to take official statements at face value even when they conflict with facts already known. The press expressed no skepticism regarding the convenient timing relative to the election of the administration’s ludicrous story that the consulate was sacked and four Americans killed, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, because of an internet video critical of Islam. Instead, it avoided critically parsing that part of the story for as long as possible because any discussion of a planned terrorist attack by an al-Qaeda affiliate could have compromised Mr. Obama’s chances for reelection.
Nevertheless, testimony before Congress revealed that the intelligence community – and presumably the White House – knew almost immediately that the assault on the consulate was a terrorist attack meant to coincide with the anniversary of the World Trade Center tragedy. The testimony further revealed that there were no demonstrations outside the consulate, that U.S. intelligence never reported any such demonstrations, and that the consulate staff had repeatedly asked for enhanced security before the attack. In light of this testimony, the White House’s narrative – i.e., that spontaneous demonstrators protesting a supposedly offensive video simply ran amok – was clearly false at the time it was first disseminated.
Of course, reporting what really happened – that an al-Qaeda group executed a pre-planned terrorist assault on September 11th – would have undercut Mr. Obama’s attempts to portray himself as strong on foreign policy by claiming that the death of Osama bin Laden had crippled al-Qaeda into irrelevance. It stretches credulity to believe the White House did not intend to obfuscate when it sent Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, on a television talk-show junket to pitch the ridiculous story that four Americans were killed in a spontaneous riot over an anti-Islamic video. The White House’s simultaneous efforts to deny that it was engaging in disinformation were inconsistent with Ambassador Rice’s actions and those of its own State Department, which among other things took out advertisements in Pakistan condemning the video. That it took FOX News’s consistent coverage to prod other networks and print media finally to acknowledge the scope of the story, albeit grudgingly, speaks volumes about the mainstream’s inclination to shield Mr. Obama from political embarrassment.
Even after acknowledging the story, the mainstream press declined any probing inquiry as Mr. Obama’s narrative began to unravel. Though the White House’s strategy of lambasting an inconsequential video was recognized as drivel from the start, the media was reluctant to question the story’s veracity so close to election time. When it became impossible to ignore during the Presidential debates, the media threw Mr. Obama a lifeline in full view of the millions watching on television. Specifically, CNN’s Candy Crowley, moderator of the second debate, assisted Mr. Obama after Governor Romney had chastised him for failing to identify the attack as terrorism in a Rose Garden press conference the day after. In response to Governor Romney’s comment, Ms. Crowley suggested that video of the press conference showed the president had indeed linked the attack to terrorism. However, footage of the Rose Garden conference in its entirety shows that Mr. Obama never specifically labeled the incident terrorism and that Governor Romney had in fact spoken accurately.
The President’s Rose Garden performance was consistent with his interview for the CBS program “60 Minutes” the day after the attack, in which he was asked directly whether it was terrorism. Mr. Obama hemmed, hawed and responded that it was too early to draw such a conclusion. But consistent with their pro-Obama bias, the editors of 60 Minutes suppressed that portion of the interview when the program aired five weeks later. The president’s refusal to implicate terrorism the day after the attack was certainly newsworthy, particularly when contrasted against his later claim that he almost immediately identified it as a terrorist act. Nevertheless, the deleted segment was reinserted on the network’s website only the day before the election, quietly and with no fanfare.
In truth, Mr. Obama would not discuss the possible role of terrorism until more than a week afterward; and his team continued implicating the video for some time thereafter. But as more people testified before Congress, including former CIA Director General Petraeus, it became clear that the official “talking points” prepared by the intelligence community had originally identified the incident as an al-Qaeda terror attack, but that references to al-Qaeda and terrorism were deleted from the text used by the White House. Despite the timing of these events in relation to the election, the mainstream media refused to question whether the talking points had been altered to assist Mr. Obama in his campaign efforts. If the press were doing its job, however, it would have asked why the President and his proxies continued to offer false explanations about Benghazi, which seemed designed to preserve the fanciful narrative that al-Qaeda was destroyed, terrorism was no longer a threat, and Mr. Obama was a strong foreign policy leader.
The press had not taken such a deferential approach during the Iran-Contra Affair years earlier, when it accused the Reagan administration of malfeasance and criminal conduct. Neither did it pull any punches when it accused former President Bush of intentionally lying about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in order to justify war in Iraq – although reliable intelligence reports showed that inaccurate information concerning Iraq’s weapons capabilities actually came from factions within Iraq seeking to topple Saddam Hussein, not from “war-mongering” Republicans, and that chemical weapons did exist but were likely spirited out of the country to Syria.
In addition to its pro-Obama boosterism, the media’s coverage of Benghazi has been colored by the typically unbalanced approach it takes in reporting on the Mideast in general. News outlets such as the New York Times routinely slant their reporting to portray Islamist extremism as a consequence of Israeli actions and employ moral equivalence to rationalize terrorism against the West. They pander to those who boycott and delegitimize Israel but never question the mythology underlying Palestinian national claims, the doctrinal antisemitism that bars permanent peace with a Jewish nation, or the history of Arab-Muslim rejectionism and extremism. Moreover, they validate a left-wing that vilifies Israel as a Jewish nation, promotes the myth of global Jewish conspiracies, uses historical revisionism to authenticate Palestinian claims, and finds common cause with those who call for Israel’s destruction and the extermination of her people.
The media treats Israel’s friends as reactionary simply for supporting her right to exist, and accuses Israel of impeding peace by defending herself, retaliating against terrorists, building in towns and cities derisively labeled settlements, and exercising autonomy over her capital in Jerusalem, a city that never had an Arab majority or served as the capital of any Arab or Muslim nation. Mainstream reporters consistently ignore the unrequited concessions Israel has made in the naïve quest for peace. They also denigrate the Jews’ historical connection to their homeland, ignore the doctrinal prohibition against the recognition of a Jewish state, disregard the Palestinian Authority’s refusal to amend its charter calling for Israel’s destruction, and rationalize Palestinian incitement as a reaction to Israeli intransigence – despite the PA’s oft-stated commitment to the phased destruction of Israel. Likewise, the press ignores the antisemitic rhetoric that freely flows from the Arab-Muslim world and from leftist news sources that are never properly vetted.
Then there is the compulsion for publishing blood libels, such as the debunked Mohammed al-Dura hoax, in which a French television station used edited film to suggest that Israeli forces had killed an Arab child being shielded by his father during a supposed standoff with the Israelis. As was proven in a French court, unedited footage showed that the scene was staged, that Israelis were not shooting in the boy’s direction, and that he was not killed or even injured. During the recent hostilities in Gaza, CNN ran a similar story, implying that an Arab child had been killed in an Israeli rocket attack. Unfortunately for CNN, the alleged attack was reported to have occurred during an extended period when Hamas was firing hundreds of rockets into Israel but the Israelis were withholding fire – facts that were corroborated by other media outlets. Even the New York Times, usually a font of anti-Israel disinformation, was skeptical enough to refuse to run the story.
The media’s bias is not limited to misrepresenting dubious allegations as true. It also uses apologetic tones when discussing Islamist terrorism and shows unskeptical deference to an administration that officially refers to Muslim terrorist acts as “manmade disasters,” considers the Muslim Brotherhood a moderate organization despite its jihadist goals, and seeks rapprochement with Islamist dictatorships. Ironically, it has no problem condemning Israel for the simple act of self-defense or describing her as an apartheid state, though her Arab citizens have full political, social and economic rights.
One would think the media has an obligation to report accurately, and in fact the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists (“SPJ”) instructs its members to “seek truth and report it.” The SPJ’s Code, among other things, states that “[j]ournalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information…,” admonishes them to “[t]est the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error,” and warns that “[d]eliberate distortion is never permissible.” But these dictates are advisory only and routinely flouted. In fact, the SPJ takes the position that it cannot legally enforce its code, as explained in the following advisory comment:
“The SPJ Code of Ethics is voluntarily embraced by thousands of journalists, regardless of place or platform, and is widely used in newsrooms and classrooms as a guide for ethical behavior. The code is intended not as a set of “rules” but as a resource for ethical decision-making. It is not — nor can it be under the First Amendment — legally enforceable.”
(http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp)
This disclaimer is very convenient for relieving SPJ members of real responsibility. It also constitutes a glaring misstatement of Constitutional law. Specifically, the First Amendment only prohibits the government from restricting freedom of expression and the press (although there are exceptions). It does not bind private citizens, organizations or associations, particularly those claiming to enforce professional standards. The SPJ’s position that the First Amendment prohibits the enforcement of standards by a voluntary association is simply not true. However, this rationalization bespeaks a much larger problem.
Though journalists see themselves as members of a distinct profession, they require no specialized academic training and have no mandatory standards of conduct. Whereas traditional professions, including law, medicine, engineering and accountancy, have licensing requirements and enforceable standards, journalism has none; and its practitioners claim to be prohibited legally from enforcing any. Yet there is no basis for asserting that the Constitution prohibits groups such as the SPJ from implementing professional or ethical standards. Unfortunately, though, the Constitution is often misquoted by those seeking to evade responsibility for exercising restraint. In more extreme circumstances, it is even used to defend hate speech, including antisemitic expressions masked as political criticism of Israel. Still, there is nothing in the First Amendment that would prevent news organizations from administering their own professional standards, as long as the government is not involved in enforcement.
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution contemplates a free and open press to provide accurate information to the public and scrutinize the doings of government. It does not prohibit the press from enforcing standards of fairness, honesty and accuracy. By failing to require such standards, and by permitting the manipulation of news in order to support specific parties, candidates and causes, the press falls far short of the lofty goals envisioned by the Constitution. While there certainly is and should be a place for pundits, commentators and diverse opinions in the universe of journalism, reporters should never be permitted to misstate facts to advance their own partisan agendas. In so doing, they transform news into propaganda and abdicate their role as impartial watchdogs of government.

===
In the face of tragedy, all question faith. Those without turn on the old saws "Where was God?" and in the face of tragedy they cannot see him, as they couldn't before. But the faithful, alert to God's presence before, see him still. He grieves at the loss as we do. He holds the broken as we cannot. He puts an end to suffering as we cannot. For in place of animal sacrifice to atone for sin, God gave one sacrifice which in its perfection will atone throughout history. The battle has been fought and won. Only fear and shadows can defeat us now. We can succumb to tragedy and be confused by our loss. Or we can point to the truth. The tragedy is why God fought that battle. But hope, redemption and love is what he freely gives in return. That is salvation. - ed

The Johnson family's Christmas reflection on love, loss and faith
By Peter Johnson Jr.,

Editor's note: This is a special Christmas essay created and delivered by attorney and Fox News Legal Analyst Peter Johnson Jr and his daughters Blanche and Veronica. As seen on "Fox & Friends" Christmas special, December 25, 2012.
Peter: It’s become our privileged tradition to share our family’s Christmas memories and dreams with you. In early December we experienced what all of us experience at some point -- the loss of a loved one. My giant of a father and Blanche and Veronica’s loving Poppa went to heaven after a long, wonderful life.  He was known as a protector of the fallen and a voice for those without a voice.
Blanche: We cried at my grandfather’s passing and we wondered whether the joy of Christmas would be darkened. We always associated Christmas with the boundless joy he and my grandmother brought to children each year with their annual Christmas party.
Veronica: My grandmother and Uncle Chris decided that the tradition should continue. They understood that the birth of Jesus and his message of conquering death was the key to healing and renewal. The Christmas party went on, the children laughed and the parents beamed as we raised funds for charity.
Peter: On the day before the party a madman flashed the face of evil in a little town called Newtown. 26 lives were snuffed out including 20 six and seven year old children. As a father, and as an American, I asked myself what could I do to help?  I told the producers I needed to go there and they said, ”Please go. “
Blanche: The next morning my father and I arrived in Newtown as the sun rose. The sky was streaked with red and I asked myself whether the clouds like the grieving mothers and fathers of Newtown had also spent the night crying. My father looked up at the skies too and wondered aloud “how can the skies be so bright on such a dark day.” We went immediately to the St. Rose of Lima church where parishioners wept and we prayed and lit candles in memory of the innocents lost.
Veronica: Later that morning I watched my father interview the pastor of that church, Monsignor Robert Weiss. Monsignor Weiss described how he had broken the news of the death one girl to her brother. We heard how another boy lamented, “ I don’t want to die, I just want to have Christmas.”
Blanche: My father noted that worshippers would march out of the church to a live nativity scene as a deacon announced that there was a star over the stable.  The monsignor vowed: “you know we’re not just going to be looking for one star we’re going to looking for these twenty new stars too.”
Peter: At that very moment as I stood in the cold Connecticut air, touched by the souls of the sweet, spotless, sinless, stainless infants, I understood the reality of the renewal and sanctifying grace of the Christ Child. I reminded the audience and myself what Dr. Martin Luther King had said, “Death is not a blind alley but an open door.”  But I also worried: they are so young who will greet them at the door?
We said our goodbyes and I prayed for the spirit of Olivia Engel, who was to have been an angel in the Christmas pageant. On that day I summoned my shaken faith and prayed that the families, if they were believers, would draw on theirs, too, and then it came to me. I wanted to hug and reassure them that the strongest, most nurturing guardian of fallen angels I know, my own father, would be standing among those at the gates of heaven to lovingly take the children by the hand to introduce them to their new friend forever, the Christ Child named Jesus born in a little town called Bethlehem.
Blanche: As we left Newtown we were more hopeful then when we arrived.  We passed a shrine to the children which included Christmas toys.  As the sky turned from red to blue the radio played "Angels We Have Heard on High."
Veronica: On Christmas Day the sweetest notes of glory to God in the highest will be sung by the sweetest angels of Newtown.
Peter Johnson Jr. is a lawyer and Fox News legal analyst.
Dear Jesus, I need You to forgive me of my sins because I can't go to Heaven by good works. I believe You are God and that You died on the cross to pay for my sins. I believe You rose from the dead. I ask You to forgive me and save me right now. Amen! - ed
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)