[Rhodes22-list] Ben C at it again...

[Brad Haslett]

Ed,

Below is a timely article out of Boston on the subject of deliberate
MSM lies.  It truly amazes me that otherwise sane and rational people
think that candidates, or news organizations, or any group of people
are something other than human.  My wife, who grew-up under a cult
figure (think Little Red Book as a first-grade reading primer) cringes
as she watches people react to this phenomenon.  PT Barnum - The Great
Helmsman - alive and well in 2008.

Brad

--------------------------

 The day that truth and fairness died
Globe edit hits Palin, evidence be damned
By Michael Graham  |   Thursday, October 2, 2008  |
http://www.bostonherald.com  |  Op-Ed

The headline on the Boston Globe-Democrat's editorial page, "Wasilla
Made Rape Victims Pay," says it all.

All wrong.

The Globe-Democrat yesterday asserted as fact that "during her tenure
as mayor of Wasilla, the town started charging rape victims or their
insurers for rape kits."

But the truth is that there is no record of a rape victim ever being
charged for a rape kit by Wasilla; there's no evidence Mayor Palin
knew about the policy or took any action on it either way; and no
record of a victim's insurance company being charged by the town.

How does an alleged "newspaper" make such a claim without any facts whatsoever?

The story is old news in the new media. Left-leaning Slate.com called
it "a nasty and untrue rumor." National Review's Jim Geraghty, who has
written exhaustively on the story calls it "unsupported by the facts."
But at the Obama-Uber-Alles Boston Globe, they call it "news."

We have come to the point in the media's treatment of Gov. Sarah Palin
where even the fig leaf of pretense is gone. The press has openly
chosen sides and has stopped apologizing for it.

In the old days the media establishment would have demanded Gwen Ifill
recuse herself from tonight's debate. (See Malkin's column.) Today,
that's greeted with a shrug.

The Propadandists Formerly Known As Journalists have abandoned even
the semblance of integrity and thrown themselves into the mission of
electing the "right" candidate, Barack Obama.

And if that means running lead editorials filled with direct,
demonstrable lies it's for the greater good. Sacrifices must be made.
Starting with the truth.

And the truth is out there. When the allegation was first made that,
as mayor, Sarah Palin chased down rape victims for the Wasilla's
Accounts Receivable Department, city records were searched for such a
transaction.

Not only is there no record that any victim or insurance company was
ever invoiced by the city, but current Police Chief Angella Long found
records of two rape kits being paid for by the city.

The Globe-Democrat editorial also claims that Wasilla's "outrageous"
policy led the Alaska legislature to ban the practice. But as Geraghty
reports, neither Wasilla nor Palin was mentioned in the six
legislative hearings on the subject.

The editorial quotes Palin's former police chief as saying of rape
kits "I just don't want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer."
But they mysteriously omit the next sentence: "It's the criminal who
should bear the burden."

What kind of "journalist" publishes such unfounded nonsense?

The kind who would write this: "The policy on rape kits may have had
less to do withtaxpayers and more to do with Palin's position on
abortion."

How do taxpayer-subsidized rape kits promote abortion? How does a
rational person even make that argument?

There is a real rape kit story, by the way. Some states allow local
governments to treat them like regular medical expenses and seek
reimbursements. Illinois, for example.

Gee, isn't there some national politician from the Illinois
legislature who could have actually done something about this policy?

On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 6:13 AM, Tootle <ekroposki at charter.net> wrote:
>
> Ben C is again citing the New York Times as authority.  And it is its biased
> editorial staff no less.  I am sorry to disagree with Ben because I advocate
> ethical conduct of politicians.  However, I have to believe that citing the
> New York Times as a good source of information is egregious hypocrisy.  The
> New York Times supported the Dan Rather lies. It is not an honest
> information souce.
>
> An Attorney General or assistant attorney general is a political position.
> An attorney general has a right to dismiss assistant attorney generals for
> any reason.  Ben fails to cite the enabling legislation saying that a
> politically appointed assistant attorney general can only be fired for
> cause.  Ben has  access to the laws, he needs to post the law that says
> assistant attorneys general can only be fired for specific causes?  Ben is
> confusing career civil service with politically appointed jobs.  And, it is
> obvious this is intentional deception.
>
> The Attorney General does not have to personally fire the assistants.  He
> can use an intermediate assistant to do so. Again, show us the specific law
> that says he cannot delegate an assistant to fire a subordinate assistant.
>
> How about wrong doing by Obama, or his shady acceptance of contributions?
> Just look at the sources of his internet contributions.  Has he denied or
> vigorously stopped them.
>
> Again, there is a ethical problem of supporting intentional deception.  This
> is not mere puffing and discusssion.
>
> Ed K
> Greenville, SC, USA
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Ben-C-at-it-again...-tp19777306p19777306.html
> Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> __________________________________________________
> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> __________________________________________________
>