OBVIOUS MEDIA ANTI-GUN BIAS

Josey1

Nuggets 12.10.01 "News Nuggets" is Copyright c 2001 By Ray Thomas PULP WESTERN LAND-GRAB: In the last few years, 26 ranchers, all of whom have come to the attention of the Forest Service by taking the part of other ranchers whose ranches were being stolen, have lost their land to a simple scam: "For more than twenty years, the Forest Service people have been intentionally implementing regulations that they knew would force ranching families out of business," says rancher Cliff Gardner, who just recently lost his land to the same scam. In order to keep wildfires down, the land they used to be able to use had to be grazed. The government, without consultation, stopped them from being able to graze a large part of the land, opening them to fire danger. Further, if they did not do specific things they could not do under these new rules, they would lose their water rights. The government knew this and simply waited until they violated the "new rules," then took them to court. In the end, this family, who have been ranching there for 129 years, will lose their ranch and Gardner will probably spend some time in jail. All because the government didn't like their opposition in other cases and wanted their land. Upon hearing the judge's decision, Gardner said: "The judge could not have made it more clear to us that the Constitution and its protections are completely suspended. There could never have been a more cold-blooded demonstration of disregard for constitutional principles and individual rights than was exhibited by Judge McKibben this morning in his courtroom. Thomas Jefferson's warning that the germ of America's destruction lies in its judiciary, was realized today in Judge McKibben's courtroom." This kind of thing is happening all over the West, and just because these thefts come under a judge's order, nobody notices the details, which show the scam for all to see . . . if they look. (Source: Sierra Times, 12/7/2001) [121001-1] HOW STUPID IS THAT? I know this is strictly a local story but it illustrates just how stupid people can get when they get angry by being thwarted. John Thomas Raabe, 39, lives in the 1500 block of Lawrence Street in Denver, Colorado. The city frequently blocks traffic on this block for days at a time because of various events. But he still gets angry when he can't get through to go home, which is in the middle of this block. But when he found a roadblock keeping him from getting to his apartment house garage this time, he flipped and just drove through it, knocking policemen over like tenpins (none were severely injured although one was sent flying). Then he proceeded to his parking garage like nothing had happened, parked in his usual spot, and got on the elevator to his apartment where the cops arrested him sometime later. Can you believe this? He runs over three cops and calmly goes home a few hundred yards down the street. I fear for this man's sanity. This is not just stupidity. I'm sure he's going to get some jail time out of this. I'm just as sure his boss is going to fire him. I would, because I wouldn't want someone this subject to idiot behavior working around me (but I'd bring a gun to work for a while because this is the kind of guy who would come back shooting). Raabe was held on $1,500 bail at the Denver City Jail for investigation of two counts of third-degree assault, disobedience to a police officer, reckless driving and failure to report an accident involving personal injury. I don't know what that last is about. Maybe he figured they already knew all about it, so why report it? What is it with people these days? Are they so frustrated with life that they'd do something like this? Meanwhile in the "Land of Goshen" Indiana, an employee comes in, shoots a bunch of people, one of whom died, then kills himself. This (Raabe story) is another such story although luckily no one was seriously injured. (Source: News item by Brian D. Crecente in the Rocky Mountain News, 12/7/2001) [121001-2] TURN BIN LADEN OVER? Does anybody still seriously entertain the possibility that the Taliban will turn Osama bin Laden over to the United States? Not on your tintype! The Taliban and al Qaida have a "symbiotic relationship, with al Qaida the militarily and financially superior force. In other words, the Taliban is a "wholly owned subsidiary" of al Qaida. Osama bin Laden owned Afghanistan until he foolishly bit the tiger's tail and got his organization wiped out and himself put on the run. They filled the airwaves for weeks with threats to "destroy America" while running from one destroyed headquarters to another shouting threats over their fast-moving shoulders. Within weeks the myth of the superiority of Taliban fighters was blown away as their "brave fighters" surrendered en masse or just changed over to the other side to avoid their "hero's reward." Now they've been destroyed as a political entity in Afghanistan. They're no longer any kind of government and their "subjects" are now gleefully violating their edicts, shaving off their beards, women getting rid of their Bhurkas and once again seeing the world without cheesecloth in front of their eyes; going back to work and school and continuing to prepare for the productive lives the Taliban denied them. Meanwhile, Mullah Omar, who demanded his troops "fight to the death" while negotiating clemency for himself and his cohorts, is running faster and faster. He and bin Laden are nowhere to be seen. They're probably in bin Laden's villa in the South of France, clean-shaven, wearing three-piece suits, under different names. Dying for God is only for the lower classes, it seems, and even they don't want to do it, for the most part. The myth of the superiority of bin Laden and the Taliban is over. They're just murderers on the run now, and no matter what agreements they might pry out of the Northern Alliance, they will be dealt with properly, in time. (Just common sense) [121001-3] WRONG? Since I noted that our government had insisted on a terrorist named Mohammed Atta be released among others who had done terrorist atrocities in the past (Nuggets, 12/4/01), only to see his name among those flying aircraft into our buildings, I've received several e-mails assuring me that the one released was not the same man. I can understand the confusion since everybody over there are named "Mohammed" this or "Abdul" that. Name confusion is inevitable. So suffice it to say that I've seen no proof that this guy isn't one and the same, neither have I seen proof that he is. Suffice it to say that it is very possible that this was not the same guy and leave it at that. Whether or not he was the same guy proves nothing, one way or the other and my mention of him does not alter the main subject of the Nugget. (Source: Sierra Times, 12/4/2001) [121001-4] OBVIOUS MEDIA ANTI-GUN BIAS: University of Michigan Ph.D. Brian Patrick recently spent a year poring over 1,500 published articles that appeared in such prestigious publications as The New York Times, the Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times and Christian Science Monitor, and what he discovered was an obvious bias on the subject of guns. References in publications described organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), for example, referred to the group as a "leading liberal champion" or a "civil liberties group." The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) was called a "national civil rights group" or a "venerable civil rights organization" instead of the race-baiting extortion outfit it really is. But the National Rifle Association was always described with negative labels such as "radical gun lobby", "arrogant lobby" and "a rich and paranoid organization". Use of unflattering labels on one side is a simple mechanism to marginalize those you wish to destroy. But that isn't the only way the media put a negative spin on the gun-control debate. When referring to the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) or the NAACP, sources are quoted with verbs like "reported", "indicated" or "documented". But when quoting the NRA, it was "claims", "asserts", "alleges" or "likes to portray". Patrick concludes, "These data support a conclusion of systematic marginalization of the NRA." The Media Research Center finds that of 653 TV reports they examined, 357 advocated gun control while just 36 opposed it, a 10 to 1 ratio. (260 were neutral). On the evening news, the bias was 8 to 1 in favor while the morning shows were 13 to 1 in favor. News programs were twice as likely to air antigun sound bytes as they were to use pro-gun sound bites and twice as likely to feature antigun guests. Conversely, Project Exile -- the highly successful prosecution program used in Richmond, VA and even supported by the NRA -- received single-digit story counts in the 653-story sample. To see the obvious slant of the commentators, see these quotes from Juan Williams of FOX and Geraldo Rivera on CNBC. "I don't' understand why we're piddling around," said Williams. "We should talk about getting rid of guns in this country." Geraldo didn't leave much room for speculation on his position, either, when he said, "How much longer are we gonna be wrapping he flag of patriotism to justify 250 million guns out there?" Then think about Geraldo admitting to carrying a gun for self-protection in Afghanistan. I guess it all depends on the amount of perceived personal danger, doesn't it? Nothing like bullets whistling past your head make you think differently. (Source: Columnist Babe Winkleman, 12/9/2001) [121001-5] RAY'S SHORTS: These are very short items, but on important subjects: Of sacred cows: "CBS News insiders are reacting with anger to former CBS reporter Bernard Goldberg's new book about their liberal bias. 'Treason,' Eric Engberg told Howard Kurtz. Goldberg reported that CBS News chief Andrew Heyward conceded liberal bias, but warned: 'If you repeat any of this, I'll deny it.' Indeed, Heyward did deny it during a C-SPAN call-in show last year." Funny -- to be treason it has to be truthful. Notice they don't answer specifics, they only attack the writer. They don't like to be reported on. (Media Research Center) Clinton Memoir: A New York paper is soliciting reader suggestions for possible titles for the forthcoming Bill Clinton memoir. One particularly memorable one was "Crouching Intern, Hidden Cigar" (PoliticalHumor@topica.com) That old saw again: Newsweek's Eleanor Clift blamed tax cuts for the recession: "President Bush gambled on a tax cut that largely rewards better-off people in this country." When are they going to figure out that the old "tax cuts for the rich" scam isn't working any more? (Media Research Center) Hillary's "bugged": "A former aide to Hillary Clinton describes the ex-first lady as 'bugged' that Laura Bush - who is sometimes called the 'anti-Hillary' - is getting 'good press,' especially on the issue of Afghan women, a topic Hillary wants to homestead. What if President Bush topples the Taliban, which rose to power under her husband's administration? What if Republicans accomplish more for Afghan women than radical feminists do? Such questions are the stuff of Hillary's nightmares." (Fox News, 12/4/01) [121001-6] http://www.sierratimes.com/nuggets.htm