A Centrist Living in Seattle

Classic Bob Hope

2007-07-07T10:37:00.000-07:00

Speaks for itself:

Why I Hate the UN

2007-03-26T19:19:00.000-07:00

Liberals everywhere keep screaming about why we aren't on the UN Human Rights Commission. Watch this banned speech made by UN Watch director Hillel Neuer and you'll understand why reasonable people can make an argument for the US to leave the party once and for all. The president of the Human Rights Commission, Luis Alfonso de Alba (the Mexican ambassador, no less) actually threatens to remove Neuer's speech from the official record. And BTW other members of the Human Rights Commission have included such exemplary countries as Sudan, Uganda, Cuba and Libya.

Open Mouth and Insert Foot: Andrew Young "Helps" Wal-Mart

2006-08-19T11:23:00.000-07:00

After being promptly hauled out of the UN many years ago for his comments about the Brits being the original racists, Andrew Young still managed to con Wal-Mart into hiring him as a consultant. What was his job? To schmooze communities into seeing the benefits of allowing Wal-Mart into their neighborhoods. As most of you know, a lot of small business owners -- often with union support, of course -- try to hold the retail behemoth from coming in and offering lots of merchandise at the cheapest prices because of their incredible buying power. So what brilliant strategy did Young employ to make Wal-Mart "look good"? Slam the small merchants who are simply trying to make the most of the American Way by braving inner city neighborhoods where no one else dares to tread.

From a recent piece from The New York Times as published in the International Herald Tribune:

"Andrew Young, the American civil rights leader who was hired by Wal- Mart Stores to improve its public image, has resigned from that post after telling an African-American newspaper that Jewish, Arab and Korean shop owners had "ripped off" urban communities for years, "selling us stale bread and bad meat and wilted vegetables."" (Read the rest of the article here.)

Apparently, the immediate backlash forced Mr. Young to "quit" his new job with Wal-Mart. (So who's next in line? Jesse Jackson? Ha ha.)

Now some of you have already received comments from me in the past about personal experiences and anecdotes regarding black discrimination towards other races so don't be too surprised to see some of those comments repeated here. However, here's one of my favorite stories.

Many, many years ago, when we were still kids growing up, one of the Chinese families we knew in Halifax decided to sell everything -- restaurant and all their real estate holdings -- and move to LA! It was a pretty bold move, especially at the time. They ended up buying and growing a big, independent grocery store (the size of a Ralph's) which became quite successful and profitable. All this despite being robbed many times (they ended up hiring round-the-clock security guards) and raising prices to cover the high shoplifting losses. The store was in a black neighborhood so they also endured an unbelievable amount of abuse and other nastiness. Well, to make long story short, LA had a long, hot summer and the blacks rioted and burned parts of the city down. The neighborhood their store was located: a little area called Watts. They looted the store first and then they burned it -- to the ground! Of course, they were lucky (and smart) enough to have more than adequate insurance so they collected with little question for the underwriters; it was all on film on the 6:00 o'clock news!

Here's the irony: Weeks later, the black community leaders requested a meeting with them to propose something to them. They wanted them to re-build the store and they would even help them get special SBA funds to assist with reconstruction! Of course, our friends told them they had no interest in going back into the retail business in the hood ever again. The patriarch of the family said to them, "Your kids spit on us. They stole from us. They accused us of cheating them and they called us names. When the shoplifting got to be too much, we had to go to the expense of hiring security guards. All of this doubled our overhead so we had to charge higher prices just to stay in business. And then they started to rob us at gunpoint forcing us to hire ARMED security guards to protect us and our paying customers. They made no pretensions on how much they despised us and they showed it when they burned our store to the ground. Why is it that you want us to re-build our store?"

To which the leader of the black community group replied, "But our Mothers and Grandmothers now have to go 20 blocks to get their groceries! They need your store back!"

They decided to collect the insurance and promptly sold the property not long after that.

So my question to Mr. Young is this: Where were the enterprising black business people who should have opened stores in YOUR neighborhood to serve YOUR own people and make lots of money to move up and away? Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out!

As also posted on Blogger News Network.

How the News is Made in the Middle East

2006-08-12T13:24:00.000-07:00

This 18-minute YouTube video is really an eye-opener! It's aptly titled Pallywood. You'll never look at news footage out of the Middle East the same way again. In the aftermath of the Reutered photographs, a new pattern of deception is emerging from the ongoing Palestinian and Hezbollah conflicts. And al Jazeera wants to broadcast in America? Not until American media is allowed to freely broadcast over there!

UN "Observers" in the Middle East

2006-07-30T11:45:00.000-07:00

Either the UN takes audience participation to a new level or those damn Hezbollah kids are up to old tricks again with their incredibly realistic UN transport vans. This news clip has never apparently made it into the US mainstream media. But it's recently been posted on YouTube by LindaSOG and as detailed on her web page HERE, entitled UN Participants in Terror. Apparently, the video was shot in May 2004 by a Reuters cameraman but no one seemed to want to air it in the West. Hmmm.

Here's Michelle Malkin's recent piece The Abulances-for-Terrorists Scandal on this. And Alan Dershowitz' article Stop Terrorists' Vehicle of Choice.

What if...

2006-07-22T11:38:00.000-07:00

Over the past week or so, I have been responding in kind to all those people who have been sending me chain e-mails asking me to write my Congressman or Senator to get outraged at the overwhelming Israeli response to Hezbollah and Hamas. So far, the number of articles coming out in defense of Israel have been generally greater than the ones I've seen asking for immediate disengagement. And rightfully so. After years and years of restraint and frustration with a worthless UN, Israel finally cut loose and responded most appropriately to unwarranted attacks across the Lebanese borders. The disproportionate loss of civilian life in Lebanon is indeed a sad and inevitable outcome of this fighting. And although I tend to agree with many of the pundits that this strategy failed in past skirmishes, it generally tends to be applied only to the Israelis and not the terrorists. Let's face it: it's also plainly obvious to me that the idiots within Hezbollah and Hamas don't seem to learn anything from history at all. Period. So what does one do with stupid people? Stupid ARMED people?

But I digress... I wanted to put out a small tidbit for thought out there. Insomuch as it's become even more obvious that Iran and Syria are very much behind the backing of Hezbollah and the news coming out more and more that they're also funding trouble in other parts of the world (including the US), let's conjecture just a little bit. Let's see, Iran supplies rockets and launchers to Hezbollah. They creep up close to the Israeli border to ensure the effectiveness of their limited-range rockets into Israel. Much of those rockets and artillery are stored in houses -- and probably mosques -- all over Beirut. Now I know that a lot of people are saying that Israel should not have devastated Southern Lebanon in response to those rocket attacks. But I've recently used an analogy that has some eerie memories. Somehow, I don't think that JFK would have hesitated to nuke the hell out of Cuba had the Russians not backed down and removed them quickly during the Cuban Missile Crisis of the 60's. And then he might have considered sending another round off to Kruschev as a postscript.

So fast-forward to today. We all know that our neighbor to the south (Mexico for those of you who are geography-challenged) is one of the more corrupt countries. Given how easy it is to bribe officials and Federales and given how rampant the drug trade is down there, I would suspect that a lot of people have some pretty sophisticated artillery down there. What a scenario: Lots of money, lots of munitions, lots of corruption. I'm going to ask everyone to think about this one: When will we expect some missiles to start coming across the border into Texas and Arizona and California? Not 'If,' but 'When'? I think the likelihood is very high and the current conditions encourage it. And think about this one: THEY DON'T HAVE TO CROSS THE BORDER TO GET AT US. Given that line of thought, do you think there's an ulterior motive to patrol the border and build a big fence to keep everyone back far enough away from our border? And would we respond the same way against Mexico for NOT having prevented this type of attack (or perhaps even enabling it)? I may get roasted by bleeding-heart liberals over this one for thinking ahead (or thinking at all) but then, reality bites!

As also posted on Blogger News Network.

Ron Howard Denies Earlier Comments about Chirac

2006-05-13T11:10:00.000-07:00

Did anyone happen to see the interview with Ron Howard on the Tonight Show last Tuesday night? On this particular evening, Ron Howard completely repudiated any and all previous interviews and quotes by saying that President Jacques Chirac had never asked him to cast or hire family friends for The da Vinci Code. He looked about as comfortable doing this as any other foreign diplomat hauled on the carpet for ruffling international feathers. After all, it was Chirac who apparently "made a few calls" to smooth the way for them to be allowed to shoot some of the most important scenes in the Louvre itself. Not a small feat in itself.

Just a few months earlier, Howard and his producer, Brian Grazer, had been interviewed -- AND quoted -- in the MSM as having been schmoozed by Chirac in his office during an unusually long visit as part of a lobbying effort to have them cast Sophie Marceau in a leading role, Marceau was a close friend of Chirac's daughter and a staunch supporter in his 2002 presidential campaign. In all of the interviews immediately following that meeting, Ron Howard was quoted laughing it off and saying, "That was hilarious. Fortunately, the deal was already closed." Not a single statement was ever issued to deny or repudiate that the conversation had ever happened. Until last week on the Tonight Show. In his best Opie face, Howard blurts out, "Here's how it happened... To think that the President of a country is going to get involved in the negotiating of contracts is pretty ridiculous." And then they moved on rather quickly. You can watch or download the entire interview for yourself on one of the (many) da Vinci Code blogs here. (This discussion is only about a minute long and happens in the last third of the interview if you want to fast-forward.) What is also obvious is that Ron Howard and his wife are good friends with Jay Leno and his wife (he mentions a big dinner they attended earlier in the interview). So this may well have been a canned PR sweep under the rug.

What's been interesting is that not a single major publication or news station has picked up on Howard's denial/retraction. Was it in fact simply a little bit of backpedalling diplomacy? Might Ron Howard have reason to try and smooth the ruffled feathers of the French aristocracy? Perhaps he hopes to be able to return to France one day without being harassed at Customs.

Personally, I think it DID happen and I somehow don't doubt that Chirac was arrogant enough to make such demands. This from the man who was considered the most corrupt mayor in the history of Paris (from 1977 to 1995!) before moving on to become the President of France. He had also served an unprecedented 3 times as Prime Minister of France before that. And the mantle of his presidency is what is protecting him from prosecution.

I guess the point I want to make is that a lot of stuff goes on behind the scenes that most of us will never know about or understand. All the time. Everywhere. People make deals for whatever reasons, be they political or personal. And it seems that with so much flooding over us every day, it's easy to simply pick and choose an opinion and stick with it regardless of what may really be happening. I guess I'm wondering out loud if this has always been this way. My girlfriend and I have been having a huge blowout over this concept in general and about Ron Howard in particular. (SHE considers herself a staunch liberal and me a staunch conservative -- not my opinion here I might add!) On this particular story, after months and months of hearing the quotes and stories of that fateful visit Ron Howard had with Jacques Chirac -- with absolutely NO official denials anywhere -- he finally makes one single statement on Leno denying it. And voila -- it's the truth! And nothing else matters! All because it's convenient and what you want to hear. Never mind that it's been all over the MSM -- including all of the Hollywood press, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN (heaven forbid, I DON'T want to mention Fox and Drudge -- she'll use that against me!) since December! Even the French press was in an uproar over it (and surprise -- it wasn't favorable to Chirac!).

So despite her conspiracy theory ways, my girlfriend now says that it had to be the truth since she saw this interview on Leno and it came out of Ron Howard's mouth -- ON TELEVISION! So it must be the real story. This from someone who has been drinking the Kool-Aid for months about how 9/11 and the attack on the Pentagon was a major conspiracyy brought on by spooks high up in the Pentagon and other powers that be. The endless clips of the Pentagon crash in which you can't see any plane wreckage confirm that it simply couldn't have been a plane but a bomb. She knows this to be true because I'm the one who has to sit through the re-plays of those stupid clips being replayed ad nauseum. (BTW -- Has anyone ever noticed that these people always seem to pick the same spooky "conspiracy" music in the background? Where the hell did they GET this sound clip anyway?)

Ah but I digress... Back to the point. And it was just a single point that I wanted to make. I think someone got to Ron Howard. Whether it be the State Department or someone back in Paris, I have strong suspicions that he was lectured about the reality of world politics and business. With hundreds of millions at stake (and his reputation as a serious director) on his upcoming movie, hedging your bets by keeping your mouth closed seems like a small price to pay. Eating a little crow is small potatoes in the big scheme of things: money and careers are at stake. Am I faulting Ron Howard? Hell, no! In fact, I admire him for being a pragmatist. It's a rarity in any circle today.

Now back to my earlier statement: Did anyone else see this interview and has anyone anywhere seen anything in the mainstream media covering this little-covered about-face? Despite my sourcing numerous earlier stories containing Ron Howard's direct quotes (for my girlfriend's sake), I haven't been able to find coverage of what would seem to be an important turnaround regarding Chirac's requests. And here's my point: We'll probably never really get all of the facts behind what was siad in that meeting. And that holds true with just about everything else we read and hear and see in the media. If you choose to be narrowly selective about what you want to believe, don't be too surprised if it comes back to bite you later. I hope to be posting more soon about the convenient memory so many political zealots seem to possess these days.

RobertinSeattle opines occasionally but generally tends to post things on the lighter side of blogging at his CrazyInbox. This piece was posted on Blogger News Network and A Centrist Living in Seattle.

OK -- NOW I get it!

2005-10-01T16:30:00.000-07:00

After all the saturated news coverage of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, I think I've finally figured out for myself how things really work. Mind you, this is just how it's finally settled for me and I'm sure I'll hear all about it from many of my liberal friends. Anyway, here goes:

So the MSM (MainStream Media) reports on all that nasty -- and inflammatory -- stuff that came out of New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina. Thousands dead, roaming armed gangs, gang rapes, cannibalism and even rumors of sharks swimming in infested waters around the Gulf. It was the end of the world. Even worse, the nasty reporting with all the racist undertones in this unprecedented natural disaster came from all sides, especially from the so-called "black leadership." Unbelievable! The only guy who could be fired got fired: Michael Brown, head of FEMA got taken to task for his lack of fast response to the relief efforts. All this even as both the Mayor of New Orleans and the Governor of Louisana whined openly on national television without any repercussions about losing their jobs for incompetency since they were voted in and not appointed (and they're STILL bickering!). And President Bush got slammed by the MSM for his slow response to this disaster. (Never mind that he accepted responsibility for the perceived slow response.) And on and on and on... Right?

Anyway, the dust is now settling and as it turns out, there were a lot fewer than 1,000 dead and almost none in the Superdome or the New Orleans Convention Center (surprise!). No cannibalism either... But then the media start a poll and surprise -- George Bush is at his lowest ratings in his Presidency! And of course, that becomes another story, right? I think they used to call it 'News in the Making.' And they sure are making it these days. No wonder blog news is quickly becoming more popular (and credible) these days.

So let me see now... Media pumps up and overreacts and overreports on the disaster in New Orleans. Media then slams the President and the Feds for their poor response to all these terrible things that happened. Then the media runs polls that naturally say that the people are unhappy with the President's performance. Then they run stories about it. Then the stories start coming back about how poorly reported and inflated all the bad news actually was. Any retractions? Nah. Next story...

And the MSM wonders why no one respects them any more? And they also wonder how Governator Schwarzenegger could sign that paparazzi bill in California? I honestly believe that the MSM has been the primary reason in today's society that has created an atmosphere of judging others to a higher standard than you would hold yourself. For some reason, journalists today seem to think that they are better than you or me (and everyone else -- especially politicians) and that they're privileged to be both protected and trusted for what they say. Reporters seem to forget that the public trust has to be earned every single day and cannot be violated under any circumstances. You viloate that trust just once and you should have to claw yourself back from the bottom of the pit all over again. I read today about how many of them are incredulous that the public isn't more appalled at how Judith Miller had been imprisoned for "protecting her source." (The phrase 'Stuck on Stupid' comes to mind, in her case.) We should all be outraged that this reporter had been martyred protecting our "Right to Know" and her "confidentiality" agreements. Right. I'm fed up with reporters who think they have a right to an opinion; leave that to the op/ed pages. Me, I just want straight, objective news. Stop digging for news where there isn't any more and stop creating the news when there isn't any.

Truth in Journalism

2005-08-18T19:00:00.000-07:00

Today, Akamai announced amid little fanfare that they were introducing a new metrics service that would allow real-time monitoring of news stories as they break online. While the service might seem to be of small value on the surface, the implications and full significance will not be immediately apparent.

"SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - It's debatable how big a deal any specific news event is compared to all the other human mayhem that occurs each day. Journalists, editors, historians and the guy at the end of the bar could probably never agree.

A news mapping service introduced on Thursday by Akamai Technologies Inc. promises to give unprecedented insight into the relative hunger that millions of Internet users have to learn of breaking events minute-by-minute."

The rest of the press release is here.

Imagine a new era in the near future when people can actually follow an "important" news story as it breaks in real time. Let's say the New York Times decides a story is significant enough to merit front page status: "Bush Bites Dog!"

Old School: Smaller papers and news wires pick the story up and run with it causing it to appear to be a huge story. Soon other newspapers paraphrase the article, often injecting their own "details" until the story gains a life of its own even if it's half-baked or completely insignificant. But on a quiet day (or week -- like Cindy What's-Her-Name camping out down in Crawford, Texas), a feeding frenzy ensues and can actually create a news story where there often isn't one. Nothing worse than a bunch of bored reporters sitting around looking for a story.

New School: A story hits The Times and people immediately start monitoring its newsworthiness using some variation of the Akamai News Mapping Service. They see that the story isn't really being read by very many people and the story gets flagged early on as unimportant and dies a fast death. Kind of like a Nielsen or Arbitron rating for the news, right? Conversely, as interest picks up in a story, other bureaus will be forced to follow so they can feed the public demand for more. Those who choose not to cover a real story will be left in the dust -- literally. It's still all about advertisers and eyeballs. The more page views you get, the more advertising dollars you'll receive.

I think we're going to see a micro-news process in reporting soon where single stories will be individually judged and advertisers will pay to be linked to them. Why would I want to pay to be in the print edition of the New York Times when I can reach a larger number of more targeted consumers faster? This is already starting to happen today: The big Hollywood studios are considering the concept of not using the New York Times to promote their blockbuster hits with $100,000 full-page opening day ads simply because they're no longer worth the money. Huge loss of income for the papers.

Such subtle but powerful changes coupled with the impact of revenue-destroying models like CraigsList will have a chilling -- and overdue -- effect on print media, particularly newspapers.

This article was posted on BNN here.