Quote

People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Saturday, September 13, 2008

There Are Two Things Around Here ...

... you don't screw with.

Mother Nature.

And Carilion Health System.

On the latter, just ask Roanoke Times reporter Jeff Sturgeon. If you can find him ...

I wonder why I haven't read about this flap in the Roanoke Times?
Something’s Rotten in Roanoke
Times is silent on reassignment of reporter after local hospital pulls its ads
by Dean Starkman, Columbia Journalism Review

The Roanoke Times is strangely silent about whether it reassigned a reporter at the behest of a big local business.

A couple of weeks ago, a strong Wall Street Journal story peeled the curtain back on how a monopoly local hospital—and a nonprofit one at that—throws its weight around Roanoke, jacking up prices, cutting off referrals to independent doctors, and, tellingly, pulling ads from the Times after repeatedly complaining about a reporter who had been aggressively covering the hospital.

The Times moved the reporter, Jeff Sturgeon, to another beat, and in the Journal story, didn’t say whether its personnel decision was influenced by the hospital, Carilion Health System. That’s here:

"As tension between Carilion and Roanoke’s independent doctors grew in 2006, a group of 200 doctors formed an organization called the Coalition for Responsible Healthcare to protest the Carilion Clinic plan. The group posted a petition on its Web site and put up billboards around Roanoke that read: “Carilion Clinic. Big Dream. Big Questions.” The local newspaper, the Roanoke Times, covered the controversy in a series of articles written by its health-care reporter, Jeff Sturgeon.

A few months later, in March 2007, the Roanoke Times moved Mr. Sturgeon off the health-care beat after Carilion complained repeatedly about his coverage. Carilion says it communicated its displeasure to the paper’s editors, but never asked that Mr. Sturgeon be reassigned. Carilion withdrew most of its advertising from the paper, but says it did that as part of a reallocation of its ad budget. 'Any friction that exists between an organization like us and the media is entirely appropriate,' Mr. Earnhart says.'" (link)

Oh, and there's this:

"Mr. Sturgeon, who now covers transportation, declined requests for comment."

Now I don't have a problem with Carilion bringing to bear its considerable monetary influence over the Times. It is a powerful and influential business entity who's first order of business is business. I do find it remarkable, though, that the "journalists" at the Times would put profit before journalistic integrity. I guess they're just like the rest of us after all. Except on that integrity part.

Interesting.

- - -

Update 6:20 pm: Roanoke RNR has pointed us to this memo reported to have been written by Roanoke Times Managing Editor Michael Stowe to his employees, denying the allegation. I'd suggest you read it carefully and grasp what's not disclosed in that memo.

A Primer On Surface Mining

And its two stages.

Provided by Bristol Herald Courier reporter Debra McCown.

Good job.

I Laugh

The Roanoke Times pounced yesterday morning. You could just feel the sneer. Get this:
So not ready for prime time

This would be sad if it weren't so frightening.

Watch just the first 20 seconds of this [Sarah Palin] interview with McCain's handpicked softball interviewer. It is so painfully, painfully obvious that she doesn't have a clue what the Bush Doctrine is, or how to defend it (if it can possibly be defended after Iraq).

The question was never whether a nation had a right to attack in face of an imminent attack. The Bush Doctrine, as articulated in Iraq, was that we had the right to attack in the face of a potential - or in the case of Iraq, an imaginary - threat of an attack.

Palin isn't ready for prime time, much less the Oval Office.

McCain should be ashamed ... (link)
My reaction when I read this was: What's the "Bush Doctrine"?

But I'm not running for Veep so I let it go. A bit ashamed of myself, of course, for not knowing something that must be really, really important.

Turns out, the internet has exploded with discussions over the last 24 hours about what the heck the Bush Doctrine is. Karl Rove - a man who should know a thing or two about the subject - says there have actually been four "Bush Doctrines" over the last eight years. And Charles Krauthammer agrees. He comes to the debate with a special distinction - he invented the term:

There is no single meaning of the Bush Doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.

He asked Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?"

She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?"

Sensing his "gotcha" moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine "is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense."

Wrong.

I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush Doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism," I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush Doctrine. (link)

Is this THE Bush Doctrine? Not according to Charlie Gibson and the Roanoke Times. They have a different one in mind. And had Sarah Palin been able to read minds, she could - and should - have known to which one Gibson was referring.

That's funny.

By the way, I should ask ol' Dan over at the Times: were you as condescending and condemnatory when The Wiener made the claim that there were 57 states in the Union? Somehow I doubt it.

But you give it to Palin for what she was or wasn't thinking. You crack me up.

- - -

* Note: Peter D. Feaver says there were seven "Bush Doctrines."

You Can Keep Your Hip Hop

I'll go with style and grace. And talent.

Here's one of my favorite actresses and songstresses of all time - Deanna Durbin - along with Judy Garland in the 1936 release of "Every Sunday."


Simply marvelous.

* Durbin did it here way, I'm proud to mention. In 1948 she walked away from a wildly successful film career, never to return.

Now He's Made Them Mad

Whether he knew what he was doing or not makes no difference now. The man has upset women around the country, and they're not going to take it.

Quote of the day:
Barack Obama's campaign is crying foul over John McCain's new hard-hitting ads. But the Democratic nominee has no one but himself to blame for his statements and his behavior.

One new spot slams Sen. Obama for riling up a crowd with his "lipstick on a pig" jibe on Tuesday, just days after GOP running mate Gov. Sarah Palin brought the house down at the Republican convention in St. Paul with her line about lipstick being the only difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull.

Obama has accused the McCain camp of "lies." But a careful look at the video of the full Obama lipstick statement to a rally in rural southwestern Virginia indicates that it was not innocent, but exactly what Sen. McCain is accusing it of being.

Sen. Obama touts himself as a new kind of politician, who refuses to take the low road. In reality, he is a product of the leftish cadres of South Side Chicago, where cutthroat political tactics are just as ugly as the left's radical vision of the government replacing parents.

Sen. McCain is wise to shift from his frivolous Britney Spears "fame" ads to real reality TV with these new messages that expose Obama and his party.

Michelle Malkin, "Tough Truths About Obama's Character," Investor's Business Daily, September 12, 2008

"Pig with Lipstick" cartoon courtesy of Ramirez and Investor's Business Daily
Click on the image to enlarge.

The Numbers Are In

According to an Associated Press poll just released, the American people consider Sarah Palin to be more qualified to be president than Barack Obama.

Ouch.
Washington - An overwhelming advantage in experience and lopsided support from working-class and suburban whites have lifted Republican John McCain to a slender lead over Barack Obama less than two months from Election Day, a poll on the presidential race said Friday.

The poll suggests that perceived inexperience is more of a problem at the top of the Democratic ticket than in the No. 2 spot for Republicans.

Eighty percent say McCain, with nearly three decades in Congress, has the right experience to be president. Just 46 percent say Obama, now in his fourth year in the Senate, is experienced enough.

Fully 47 percent say Obama lacks the proper experience — an even worse reading than the 36 percent who had the same criticism about McCain running mate Sarah Palin, serving her second year as Alaska governor after being a small-town mayor.

"This is his fourth year in the Senate, and two of those four years he spent campaigning for president," said Arthur Koch, 63, an undecided voter from Wallington, N.J. "I'm not too comfortable with that."

The American people aren't stupid. When it's made known that the only legitimate qualification for the job is that you've campaigned for the job, they shake their heads and look elsewhere. While Sarah Palin was running the huge state of Alaska, Obama was "coordinating" with local Southside Chicago dogcatchers. Since then he's been campaigning for the next gig while she's ...

... captivated the entire nation.

Photo courtesy of Vogue.

They Will Hand Him The Rope ...

... he'll use to hang them:
ADL: Religious groups' plan to break bread with Ahmadinejad is a 'betrayal'
By Shlomo Shamir and Natasha Mozgovaya, Haaretz Correspondents

Five American religious organizations have announced plans to host a dinner to break the Ramadan fast with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during his upcoming visit to the United States.

The Mennonite Central Committee, the Quakers, the World Council of Churches, Religions for Peace and the American Friends Service Committee are sponsoring the meeting with President Ahmadinejad on September 25 in New York City.

The dinner to break the Ramadan fast, called an Iftar, is being billed as "an international dialogue between religious leaders and political figures" in a conversation "about the role of religions in tackling global challenges and building peaceful societies." (link)
Ahmadinejad.

It's fair to say, George W. Bush will never be invited to "dialogue" with this bunch of leftists.
They prefer the company of those who intend to slaughter their children and grandchildren.

These miserable creatures remind me of those I read about years ago who participated in the 1940's Nazi Judenrat program. Judenräte were eastern European councils set up by Jews who were willing collaborators with their German occupiers (most notably in procuring slave labor for the Nazi industrial empire), Jews who thought they were providing their communities a valuable service by keeping schools open and clinics in operation just as trainloads of doomed fellow-citizens departed for Dachau, Bergen-Belsen, Auschwitz, Bełżec, Majdanek, Sobibor, and Treblinka. Until they too were shipped off to the extermination camps, never to be seen again.

From that experience, the survivors of the Holocaust - and their descendents - seized upon the phrase "Never Again!"

Well, again.

You see in the makeup of the Mennonite Central Committee, the Quakers, the World Council of Churches, Religions for Peace and the American Friends Service Committee the 2008 embodiment of the Judenrat ignominy.

Treblinka beckons and they don't even realize it.

You Should Be More Worried About Being a Moron

Whoopi to McCain: ‘Should I Be Worried About Being a Slave Again?’

Turn On Camera. Make Like Idiot.

I don't know whether this is humorous or flat-out pathetic:
Wondering No More
By Jonah Goldberg

Yep. The day after 9/11, as part of its "get tough" makeover, the Obama campaign is mocking John McCain for not using a computer, without caring why he doesn't use a computer. From the AP story about the computer illiterate ad:

"Our economy wouldn't survive without the Internet, and cyber-security continues to represent one our most serious national security threats," [Obama spokesman Dan] Pfeiffer said. "It's extraordinary that someone who wants to be our president and our commander in chief doesn't know how to send an e-mail."

Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by "extraordinary." The reason he doesn't send email is that he can't use a keyboard because of the relentless beatings he received from the Viet Cong in service to our country. From the Boston Globe (March 4, 2000).

This is right up there with Joe Biden's request that a paraplegic attending one of his rallies stand up and bow for the onlookers the other day. Can these guys be this inept?

Uh Oh

Looks like McCain has gotten a bounce after the Palin appearance on ABC the other night. Clintwood Connection's running poll now has McCain back up by 69 to 31% over Obama.

If Obama is going to make a move, he'd better start soon.