Archive for October, 2008


Bronze Bells of Autumn

By Linda Pastan

Although I’ve made a kind of peace
with those I loved who are already dead,
bronze bells of autumn, in their minor key,
toll for the losses still ahead.

The weather tells a narrative of change;
the wind prepares a path the geese will take.
This frost is beautiful, and yet it kills.
The harvest moon drowns in the lake.

I love the dark (it moves so gradually)
but love still more all it will erase:
these swarming leaves, this pungent smoky air,
the youth you were, your aging face.


Read Full Post »

Journalism Ethics



Walter William’s Journalist’s Creed This creed was written by Walter Williams (1864-1935), the man who founded the world’s first school of journalism at the University of Missouri and perhaps contributed more toward the promotion of professional journalism than any other person of his time.

I believe in the profession of Journalism.

I believe that the public journal is a public trust; that all connected with it are, to the full measure of responsibility, trustees for the public; that acceptance of lesser service than the public service is a betrayal of this trust.

I believe that clear thinking, clear statement, accuracy and fairness are fundamental to good journalism.

I believe that a journalist should write only what he holds in his heart to be true.

I believe that suppression of the news, for any consideration other than the welfare of society, is indefensible.

I believe that no one should write as a journalist what he would not say as a gentleman; that bribery by one’s own pocket book is as much to be avoided as bribery by the pocketbook of another; that individual responsibility may not be escaped by pleading another’s instructions or another’s dividends.

I believe that advertising, news and editorial columns should alike serve the best interests of readers; that a single standard of helpful truth and cleanness should prevail for all; that supreme test of good journalism is the measure of its public ser vice.

I believe that the journalism which succeeds the best-and best deserves success-fears God and honors man; is stoutly independent; unmoved by pride of opinion or greed of power; constructive, tolerant but never careless, self-controlled, patient, always respectful of its readers but always unafraid, is quickly indignant at injustice; is unswayed by the appeal of the privilege or the clamor of the mob; seeks to give every man a chance, and as far as law, an honest wage and recognition of human brotherhood can make it so, an equal chance; is profoundly patriotic while sincerely promoting international good will and cementing world-comradeship, is a journalism of humanity, of and for today’s world.

— DaveUSA


Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

Hail Columbus

Columbus Day Celebrates Western Civilization
by Thomas A. Bowden

On October 12, 1492, Christopher Columbus discovered the New World, opening a sea route to vast uncharted territories that awaited the spread of Western civilization. Centuries later, the ensuing cultural migration culminated in the birth and explosive growth of the greatest nation in history: the United States of America.

President Obama will take us back in time, to ‘old Europe’. and Civilization will be the worse off for it.

Read Full Post »

Tax payer tax cut

Obama tax cut ‘refunds’those who don’t pay

Washington Times, by Donald Lambro Original Article

Barack Obama says he will give 95 percent of all American workers a tax cut but does not mention that his plan would send checks to tens of millions of tax filers who pay no personal income taxes – payments that critics say look “suspiciously like welfare.” Mr. Obama’s campaign promise, which he has repeated in his speeches and in the presidential debates, stems from his “Making Work Pay” tax cut

Read Full Post »

I think this thought from Shannon Love is dead on about Obama….
EVEN TO HIS SUPPORTERS: Weeks Before the Election, Obama Remains an Enigma.

I think that is very true. I don’t see a lot of Obama supporters who know much about his voting record or can address any of the questions raised about his radical and corrupt associations. I’ve come to the conclusion they simply do not care one way or the other. Obama could be a drug lord or a stuffed duck and they would still support him. I think that politics on the Left has become a social process, i.e., a means of group identification and self-validation. Leftists care less about the triumph of ideas and far more about the triumph of a group of people with which they ego-identify. They need their ego-identity candidate to win so that they can feel good about themselves. The character and policies of the actual candidate does not matter. Obama serves merely as a symbol of a group aspirational identity. Only the symbol matters, not the actual individual human being. Because of this, leftists do not care if Obama the man has been through a vigorous vetting and testing that will expose any weaknesses before those weaknesses do damage to the leftist cause or the nation as a whole….
In other words, don’t bother asking Obama supporters why they are voting for a man who has never accomplished anything. It doesn’t even matter to them.
My prediction is that an Obama presidency will be an embarrassment to those who voted for him but are not radical Leftists. I also predict that it will NOT cause those people to start THINKING clearly. The besetting ailment of our time is people worshipping themselves, and holding no higher cause. And to those people, the outside world is not real. It is just a stage upon which the all-important self stands in the spotlight. Obama is just a prop, or a supporting character in the internal drama.
He will be discarded when no longer useful.
Posted at
06:39 AM Comments (3)

Read Full Post »

Ann Althouse, says

An old person expressing anger about race is entirely different from a young person raging about the government.

Glenn Reynolds thinks the MSM is over-reporting the supposed rage of McCain crowds:

So we’ve had nearly 8 years of lefty assassination fantasies about George W. Bush, and Bill Ayers’ bombing campaign is explained away as a consequence of him having just felt so strongly about social justice, but a few people yell things at McCain rallies and suddenly it’s a sign that anger is out of control in American politics? It’s nice of McCain to try to tamp that down… but, please, can we also note the staggering level of hypocrisy here?…

The Angry Left has gotten away with all sorts of beyond-the-pale behavior throughout the Bush Administration. The double standards involved — particularly on the part of the press — are what are feeding this anger… So while asking for McCain supporters to chill a bit, can we also ask the press to start doing its job rather than openly shilling for a Democratic victory?

I agree about the media bias, but let’s consider whether there may be some reason to tolerate more anger from the left than the right, especially if the lefties in question are young and the righties are old.

We’re genetically programmed to weather the crying and tantrums of children. Teenagers sulk and shout, and we may grow impatient, but we understand the condition. We may well remember feeling the same way. Teenagers and young adults may annoy us, but we’re not appalled. We think we can continue to speak calm reason and they will come around some day. But an angry older person sets off an alarm. Something is wrong here. Either there really is a problem or this person is unhinged. It gets our attention.

Now, I know there are old lefties too. Believe me, I know. I live in Madison. But I don’t see these people yelling and screaming. I see world-weariness, bemusement, cynicism, and other age-appropriate manifestations of dissatisfaction. That may not be too pretty, but it’s not notable. It’s not interesting. If these old lefties went to a campaign event and yelled at a candidate irrationally, wouldn’t we see it in the news?

Another distinction is the target of the rage. Rage against government — short of true threats of imminent violence — is a familiar American tradition going back to colonial days. In its best forms, it’s useful and healthy, encouraging evidence that we are not supine. What is disturbing is rage against private citizens, especially against racial and ethnic minorities. There’s nothing good there. There’s no bracing, salutary form of racism.

In short, an old person expressing anger about race is entirely different from a young person raging about the government. Different treatment is appropriate.

The question remains, of course, whether we’re getting accurate reports of angry old racists. I doubt it.

IN THE COMMENTS: People are reminding me of various angry un-young lefties: Olbermann, Kos, Hamsher, Code Pink ladies. I agree that those people rant angrily, but they aren’t indulging in “assassination fantasies.” But, okay. I don’t mean to say there aren’t any old angry lefties, only that anger is more disturbing coming from an older person.

(Line that stood out: “Banks are going bust.”)

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »