The liberal cocoon

Michael Barone has written a wonderful opinion piece about how liberals insulate themselves from opposing views and thereby are ill-prepared to argue their positions.  It reminded me of a political argument I got in a long time ago with my (very liberal) brother.  The sands of time have washed away my memories of the specifics of the argument, or even what the general subject was.  However, one thing stuck in my mind all theses years.  Every source he cited in support of his position, I had read.  Every source I cited in support of mine, he had not read.  I welcome opposing views and I love a well reasoned argument.  The same cannot be said for most liberals I meet, however.  They would never be caught dead listening to Rush Limbaugh instead of NPR (which I will from time to time tune in).  They would never think of watching FoxNews instead of MSNBC (which I watch), and Heaven forbid they read the Wall Street Journal instead of the Boston Globe (I just got done with it).  I suppose I should not push them to broaden their horizons, though.  It is too much fun watching their shocked and stupefied expressions when their liberal champions go down in flames at the polls.  After all, everything they read, everything they watched and everyone they spoke with supported their causes.

I used to find Chris Mathews half way entertaining

But as his bias became more and more obvious, and his screaming louder and louder as opposed to more thoughtful, I got to the point where I really couldn't stand him.  He turned into a classic wannabe bully.  He loved to lob grenades for which there was no opportunity for the victim to respond.  Like all of the times he would sneeringly and with great superiority say how he would love to see Sarah Palin on Jeopardy.  So how did Mr. Self Important Obviously Smarter MSNBC anchor do when he went on the show?  He embarrassed himself.

I'm thinking that Ivy League Journalism schools are not mouth pieces for conservatives

However, even they have noted the obvious journalistic bias in covering the Democratic candidate versus the Republican candidate.  It is real news to me when the Columbia Journalism Review publishes an article noting that the press says Obama "evolves" and Mitt "flip flops."  Good point by them.

You know it is bad when even your toadies say you're gonna lose

Who can forget Dan Rather's shameless smear of George W. Bush's service record when he led both the nightly newscast and 60 minutes with forged documents purportedly from Bush's Nation Guard service records (for which even CBS had to can him)?  Worse still, he went to air with his made up story a few weeks before the 2004 election so it would be next to impossible for the President to adequately rebut the false claim.  As we all know, the American people saw through it and viewed it as another example of the liberal bias of the Main Stream Media.  So what does it say about your re-election chances when even your sycophants have admitted you are going to lose the election?

Obama claims to be the 4th best Preisident of all time--but don't worry, his buddies at CBS edited that part out before the 60 Minutes interview was aired

Funny things happen when you do not have your teleprompter handy.  The blogosphere is lambasting both the Prez for making the claim and CBS for covering it up for him by cutting it out of the brodcast.  Jim Hoft at thegatewaypundit.com brings it:

You have got to be kidding…
After destroying the American economy, tripling the national deficit, blowing a trillion dollars on a failed stimulus plan and nearly doubling the unemployment rate, Barack Obama told “60 Minutes” last week that he considered himself the 4th best president in US history.
Unbelievable.

Ouch.  That's gonna leave a mark.

Corzine shows up at the House hearing, cameras roll ... and he gets served!

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha...



I do not know who served him while the cameras were rolling, but that was great!

Be a skeptical paranoid

Especially when reading about anything you did not experience first hand.  It is not that I recommend never reading historical accounts.  A great deal can be learned from them since mankind rarely invents new ways to fail, we merely implement the failure in different ways.  Nonetheless, always remember that any account you read in the press is going to be colored (tainted, spun, slanted--take your pick) by the author and the publisher.  The same can be said doubly for an historical account.  History is written by the victors to serve their own purposes and, of course, to make them look good.  Since it is Pearl Harbor Day, that brings us to Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, the Japanese leader of the horrific and illegal raid on the peacetime American naval base in Hawaii.


Yamamoto was a fascinating man.  He was the hero of the battle of Tsushima during the Russo-Japanese War, long before he was the architect of the worst attack on American soil until 9/11.  He was also the leading voice in Japan against going to war with the United States.   But we won and we got to write the history.  Don't get me wrong.  He still killed over two thousand unsuspecting US servicemen in an unquestionably illegal, immoral and despicable act of military aggression.  Had he not died by having his plane shot down by a P-38 while doing an inspection of the Solomon Islands in 1943, I have no doubt he would have been executed as a war criminal.  Still, the fact that he lead the opposition to war with the US makes me think because that fact is rarely reported.  So do yourself a favor and always be a skeptical paranoid.  Even when reading my blog.  Maybe especially so.