This blog is mainly about the spectacular train wreck at The Sacramento Bee and its parent company, the McClatchy Company. But I also post about current events, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, politics, anything else that grabs my attention. Take a look around this blog, hope you enjoy it.
Kennedy Liberals are only charitable with YOUR MONEY
The lesson you need to learn is that the “progressive” sentiments of people like Kennedy are hollow, shallow and actually counterfeit.
So if there’s anything he should shame you about, it’s that you and other true believers of the left admire one another, all clinging to the notion that your liberalism — and its promotion thereof — makes you such wonderful human beings, certainly better than your ideological opposites.
Spectator.org:
Barack Obama has a rather poor track record when it comes to charitable contributions. He consistently gave 1 percent of his income to charity.
In his most charitable year, 2005, he earned $1.7 million (two and a half times what George W. Bush earned) but gave about the same dollar amount as the President.
Al Gore has been famously stingy when it comes to actually giving his own money to charities. In 1998he was embarrassed when his tax returns revealed that he gave just $353 to charity.
Senator John Kerry likewise has a poor record. In 1995 he gave zero to charity, but did spend $500,000 to buy a half stake in a seventeenth century painting. In 1993, he gave $175 to the needy.
[Ted] Kennedy’s tax returns are obviously a closely guarded secret. But when he chose to run for President in the 1970s, he released some of them. With a net worth of more than $8 million in the early 1970s and an income of $461,444 from a series of family trusts, Senator Robin Hood gave barely 1 percent of his income to charity.
The sum is about as much as Kennedy claimed as a write-off on his fifty-foot sailing sloop Curragh.
Jesse Jackson has often claimed that he operates from a “liberal spirit of compassion and love” while conservatives are “heartless and uncaring toward the silent poor.” But according to his publicly-released tax returns, he regularly donates less than 1 percent to charity.
NOR IS THIS liberal tightfistedness anything new.
The greatest liberal icon of the 20th Century is Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He is regarded by many on the left as the personification of charity and compassion, but FDR actually has a slim record when it comes to giving to charity.
Roosevelt had an average income of $93,000 ($1.3 million in today’s dollars) but gave away about 3 percent of his income to charity. In 1935, during the height of the Great Depression, when people really could have used it, he donated just 2 percent.
It isn’t just Edward M. Kennedy that is being memorialized, it is the whole notion of Kennedyness that seems to finally have died this week.
Let’s face it, the days when the Kennedys served as royalty in this country are over.
No longer do they have the family wealth to purchase public office or the hold on the imagination to inherit public office as previous generations have done.
The whole fiasco with Caroline (Kennedy) Schlossberg in New York was proof positive of that.
She and her late brother were the bright lights of that generation of Kennedys, and she turns out to be an inarticulate dilettante and he, though potentially formidable in politics, was a reckless airhead.
The rest of the brood is a motley collection of reformed junkies, serial philanderers, spoiled rich kids, and pompous, vain nitwits.
The family is strictly a minor league operation now. So when the great lamentations are uttered for Teddy they are really being offered for a brand of self-regarding 1960s liberalism that finally has expired (Barack Obama notwithstanding) long past its sell by date.
Let’s remember that the Kennedys have set the gold standard for political corruption in this country.
After all, Ted Kennedy, unindicted 2nd degree murder in the state of Massachussetts was brought up in a family fortune built on the backs of prostitutes liquored up with boot-leg booze.
Tale of Two Funerals: Network Anchors Complained of 'Overcoverage' of Reagan Funeral (NewsBusters)
Have you heard a word of complaint from the network anchors that perhaps television is "overcovering" the funeral of Ted Kennedy? Of course not.
However, after President Ronald Reagan passed away in 2004, both Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather grumbled aloud about how his funeral was being "overcovered" despite the massive turnout of citizens when he was lain in state in the Capitol Rotunda.
So let us take a trip down memory lane to this Philadelphia Inquirer article written by Gail Shister in June 2004:
Television will go overboard on covering Ronald Reagan's funeral events, say Dan Rather of CBS and Tom Brokaw of NBC. ABC's Peter Jennings isn't so sure.
"They will be overcovered," Rather says. "Even though everybody is respectful and wants to pay homage to the president, life goes on. There is other news, like the reality of Iraq. It got very short shrift this weekend."
Can you imagine Dan Rather saying the same thing about the Kennedy funeral despite the massive coverage it is currently receiving? And, remember, Reagan was the president who turned the economy around and laid the foundations that terminated the Soviet empire.
"I think just about everything is over-covered these days," says Brokaw, 64. "The spectrum is so crowded." So is Brokaw now complaining about the "crowded spectrum?" The sounds of silence provides the answer.
ABC's Jennings has mixed feelings about the quantity of time devoted to Reagan.
"I'm more inclined to spare coverage -- come on (the air), do something meaningful, then get away." He admits he was nervous about going live Monday with the Reagan motorcade.
Back in the day, Cronkite was so subtle, so smooth, for most of the media you had to look for the bias, because they knew the way to boil a frog is to turn the heat up very, very slowly.
The clowns out there today don't have a shread of subtly, nor a clue about strategy, they have become so blatant that people have to activly avert their eyes to avoid seeing the bias, no make that the fanatical commitment to the left.
We are living in the end times of the influence of the media elites, the last election is, in my opinion, the last one they will be able to sway.
They are out in the open, as naked as the Emperor they serve, and they have no where to run for cover when the lights come on.
THANK'S FOR THIS SPECIFIC THREAD, AS THIS ONE MAKES ME WANT TO PUKE
CBS’s Schieffer: Ted Kennedy ‘Was The Classic American Hero’
At the end of Sunday’s Face the Nation on CBS, host Bob Schieffer fondly remembered Ted Kennedy, exclaiming:
"In a sense he was the classic American hero, the imperfect man who was sorely tested and yet in that testing found a way to overcome personal flaws and go on to accomplish great things."
7 comments:
Kennedy Liberals are only charitable with YOUR MONEY
The lesson you need to learn is that the “progressive” sentiments of people like Kennedy are hollow, shallow and actually counterfeit.
So if there’s anything he should shame you about, it’s that you and other true believers of the left admire one another, all clinging to the notion that your
liberalism — and its promotion thereof — makes you such wonderful human beings, certainly better than your ideological opposites.
Spectator.org:
Barack Obama has a rather poor track record when it comes to charitable contributions. He consistently gave 1 percent of his income to charity.
In his most charitable year, 2005, he earned $1.7 million (two and a half times what George W. Bush earned) but gave about the same dollar amount as the President.
Al Gore has been famously stingy when it comes to actually giving his own money to charities. In 1998he was embarrassed when his tax returns revealed that he gave just $353 to charity.
Senator John Kerry likewise has a poor record. In 1995 he gave zero to charity, but did spend $500,000 to buy a half stake in a seventeenth century painting. In 1993, he gave $175 to the needy.
[Ted] Kennedy’s tax returns are obviously a closely guarded secret. But when he chose to run for President in the 1970s, he released some of them. With a net worth of more than $8 million in the early 1970s and an income of $461,444 from a series of family trusts, Senator Robin Hood gave barely 1 percent of his income to charity.
The sum is about as much as Kennedy claimed as a write-off on his fifty-foot sailing sloop Curragh.
Jesse Jackson has often claimed that he operates from a “liberal spirit of compassion and love” while conservatives are “heartless and uncaring toward the silent poor.” But according to his publicly-released tax returns, he regularly donates less than 1 percent to charity.
NOR IS THIS liberal tightfistedness anything new.
The greatest liberal icon of the 20th Century is Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He is regarded by many on the left as the personification of charity and compassion, but FDR actually has a slim record when it comes to giving to charity.
Roosevelt had an average income of $93,000 ($1.3 million in today’s dollars) but gave away about 3 percent of his income to charity. In 1935, during the height of the Great Depression, when people really could have used it, he donated just 2 percent.
It isn’t just Edward M. Kennedy that is being memorialized, it is the whole notion of Kennedyness that seems to finally have died this week.
Let’s face it, the days when the Kennedys served as royalty in this country are over.
No longer do they have the family wealth to purchase public office or the hold on the imagination to inherit public office as previous generations have done.
The whole fiasco with Caroline (Kennedy) Schlossberg in New York was proof positive of that.
She and her late brother were the bright lights of that generation of Kennedys, and she turns out to be an inarticulate dilettante and he, though potentially formidable in politics, was a reckless airhead.
The rest of the brood is a motley collection of reformed junkies, serial philanderers, spoiled rich kids, and pompous, vain nitwits.
The family is strictly a minor league operation now. So when the great lamentations are uttered for Teddy they are really being offered for a brand of self-regarding 1960s liberalism that finally has expired (Barack Obama notwithstanding) long past its sell by date.
Let’s remember that the Kennedys have set the gold standard for political corruption in this country.
After all, Ted Kennedy, unindicted 2nd degree murder in the state of Massachussetts was brought up in a family fortune built on the backs of prostitutes liquored up with boot-leg booze.
Tale of Two Funerals: Network Anchors Complained of 'Overcoverage' of Reagan Funeral (NewsBusters)
Have you heard a word of complaint from the network anchors that perhaps television is "overcovering" the funeral of Ted Kennedy? Of course not.
However, after President Ronald Reagan passed away in 2004, both Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather grumbled aloud about how his funeral was being "overcovered" despite the massive turnout of citizens when he was lain in state in the Capitol Rotunda.
So let us take a trip down memory lane to this Philadelphia Inquirer article written by Gail Shister in June 2004:
Television will go overboard on covering Ronald Reagan's funeral events, say Dan Rather of CBS and Tom Brokaw of NBC. ABC's Peter Jennings isn't so sure.
"They will be overcovered," Rather says. "Even though everybody is respectful and wants to pay homage to the president, life goes on. There is other news, like the reality of Iraq. It got very short shrift this weekend."
Can you imagine Dan Rather saying the same thing about the Kennedy funeral despite the massive coverage it is currently receiving? And, remember, Reagan was the president who turned the economy around and laid the foundations that terminated the Soviet empire.
"I think just about everything is over-covered these days," says Brokaw, 64. "The spectrum is so crowded." So is Brokaw now complaining about the "crowded spectrum?" The sounds of silence provides the answer.
ABC's Jennings has mixed feelings about the quantity of time devoted to Reagan.
"I'm more inclined to spare coverage -- come on (the air), do something meaningful, then get away." He admits he was nervous about going live Monday with the Reagan motorcade.
Back in the day, Cronkite was so subtle, so smooth, for most of the media you had to look for the bias, because they knew the way to boil a frog is to turn the heat up very, very slowly.
The clowns out there today don't have a shread of subtly, nor a clue about strategy, they have become so blatant that people have to activly avert their eyes to avoid seeing the bias, no make that the fanatical commitment to the left.
We are living in the end times of the influence of the media elites, the last election is, in my opinion, the last one they will be able to sway.
They are out in the open, as naked as the Emperor they serve, and they have no where to run for cover when the lights come on.
THANK'S FOR THIS SPECIFIC THREAD, AS THIS ONE MAKES ME WANT TO PUKE
CBS’s Schieffer: Ted Kennedy ‘Was The Classic American Hero’
At the end of Sunday’s Face the Nation on CBS, host Bob Schieffer fondly remembered Ted Kennedy, exclaiming:
"In a sense he was the classic American hero, the imperfect man who was sorely tested and yet in that testing found a way to overcome personal flaws and go on to accomplish great things."
For all his supposed leadership, Ted Kennedy ran twice for positions of leadership, and he was defeated both times.
He ran for president, and Jimmy Carter did indeed whup his ass.
He ran for president pro temp, and Robert Byrd beat him.
For all his influence, he was never officially a leader.
Post a Comment