Ted Turner shows the porgressive path to Bill O'Reilly

So Ted Turner showed up on Bill O'Reilly's show on Fox News. This might be something that you would expect lots of sparks from. But in fact it was quite civil and perhaps a bit mundane.



One of the things I love to hear is the constant call that Fox News is a far-right network. Given that Sean Hannity is far-right, the network and the bulk of the programs are not. And in this instance, as I have often found, Turner barely if ever watches the network he compares to the Nazi's.

It just cements the concept of most liberals/left-wing these days. You can say anything you want, just as long as it agrees with whatever they believe. Everything else is a horrible right-wing conspiracy to remove freedom and thought. Even if they have no clue what any other thought might comprise.

And Turner was honest that his real motivation was the fact that he knew that all the major media focuses to the left (or far-left depending on your level of honesty) and thus anything neutral or to the right would draw attention beyond anything his network or the others could match. Because try as hard as they do, the nation leans right even with massive media bias.

Of course Turner could not avoid his belief that America is an exploitative nation. Funny how he says that, yet he has no problem accumulating his wealth in and from this nation. Or has he been donating the bulk of his wealth to the Government to lower the deficit, save defaulted mortgage owners, and the poor in general? Has he somehow managed to make donations to programs and organizations of size without Forbes or anyone else noticing? In fact the answer, like with most wealthy liberals/progressives - including Warren Buffett and George Soros - is no.

And the best part is the most stupid statement that the educated and experienced Ted Turner makes.

"If we stop bombing people and sent doctors, scientists, and engineers around the world that we make a lot more progress and wouldn't have near as much terrorism in the world as we do." - minute 3:09 - 3:22

That is a stupid statement in every sense of it. First America has nothing to do with bombings in India based on the differences of religion in that nation and Pakistan. We have nothing to do with bombings in France, England, Southeast Asia and nearly 2/3 of the world. And virtually all of these places have been getting bombed for over 3 decades or more. That has nothing to do with us.

Israel is one place that an argument might be made. And of course Iraq and Afghanistan are clearly a result of our actions recently. Not that anyone could say any Middle East nation was peaceful and calm over the last 5 decades let alone the last 10.

But Turner makes a dumb argument because on top of these facts we spend more money on medical and agricultural aid to various nations than many nations make as GDP. Or has he forgotten the Peace Corps and the various debts owed to America from these nations we have helped. And then there is AIDS.

America has done more about AIDS in Africa than most every other nation combined. That is still far from what I think is adequate or within our abilities, but it is far from the implied thought of Turner that we do nothing. And our work in Darfur is horrendous. But that does not erase all the other good work we have done for many nations in Africa. Still we are losing the edge in helping African nations develop better technology to China, but that is a problem of a different sort than what Turner suggests.

Again this is left-wing polispeak to make things sound worse than they are. Like somehow denouncing our actions makes their even lesser actions look better. I've never known anyone to be motivated after hard work for a good cause by being told what they have done was useless and negligible, and then asked to do more.



In part 2 it gets personal. Hanoi Jane Fonda is in the picture. But first we see what "progressives" like Turner calls himself think. Turner admires Fidel Castro. I think there are a lot of people in Florida that would love to have him explain why.

The argument that Turner makes, and I have heard before is that Castro has done good things in his time so he is a good guy. He built hospitals and makes sure people have nationalized healthcare.

So the fact that Cuba is stuck in the 1950's in virtually every aspect doesn't matter to Turner. The fact that the people have no voice in their Government is meaningless. The fact that dissenters are (or at least were) routinely jailed, beaten and/or killed is ok. The fact that their economy is horrendous is all good. Because the people get free healthcare.

So taking that logic, a nation that builds schools, allows free elections, builds hospitals, creates clean water, improves electricity, invigorates an economy and makes the nation stable is a great nation. Wake up "progressives", I just described what America is doing in Iraq.

But I think Turner would stumble on that realization. He, and "progressives" as he described himself, don't want to see America like that. For whatever reason.

Perhaps the best part of this whole interview was when Ted Turner was asked about his inaction after the Viet Nam protests. He with Hanoi Jane protested the actions of America and supported (her moreso to traitorous levels) the North Vietnamese. When America left Viet Nam due to the political pressure, 3 million Vietnamese were slaughtered. And the "progressives" said nothing.

They in fact did what some say America did to Afghanistan after the Russians were defeated. They forgot about the whole thing. They could care less. If they did care they hid it well with their complete and utter silence for decades.

Hanoi Jane, and Ted Turner, had every opportunity to speak out nationally about the atrocities. They could have brought media attention to the situation at any point they desired. Even to this day they could say something. Yet all you will hear is more silence. How "progressive".

Now considering that track record I have to ask a simple question. If we follow the guidance of "progressives" like Turner, and far-left nuts like Hanoi Jane, and leave Iraq as we did Viet Nam, what would they do if things went bad in that nation? Their actions tell us they would turn a blind eye and deaf ear, which is the absolutely best environment for groups like Al Quida to grow in. And that means we would have future attacks on our soil within 5 - 15 years, en masse.

Can America afford to have "progressives" and the far-left say

"You got me. I really didn't think about it." - minute 3:06 - 3:10

as civilians are killed?

Oliver Stone - an ultra-liberal pissing on America - movie preview

It would seem that for some in the American ultra-liberal far left wing, otherwise defined as fanatics, it is not enough that Senator Obama stands a solid chance at winning the American Presidency. It is not enough that the major news media are fawning over Senator Obama – treating his recent trip overseas as if he were a sitting President, and refusing his opponent the opportunities they give him (ie. New York Times editorial). Even the fact that a movie highlighting the very liberal Democratic Presidential candidate is in post-production is not enough (and the film will be out just before the election – nice timing).

No for those like Oliver Stone something more must be done. Something over the top. Something insulting. Something that has never happened to a sitting President in any medium. Oliver Stone feels that now is the time to make up a movie about President Bush, while he is in office.

Why can’t Oliver Stone give up his citizenship, move to France (or Russia, or Iran), and make whatever slanted version of history he wants. I’m sure the Taliban, Al Quida and a few other “see an American, kill an American” hate groups will be more than happy to pack theaters for his biased derogatory slime on film.

Obviously I have a problem with the upcoming film W. My problem is not so much political as it is decency. I don’t care that Oliver Stone has a political agenda the size of the Empire State Building. I don’t care, as much, that he is seeking to portray historical fact in a manner more akin to a scifi movie about they year 300,000 A.D. I don’t care that he is going to get about as many people in the audience (stateside) as there are members of Moveon.org – I’m sure they will all go see it 2x.

What I care about is the power and prestige of the American Presidency and thus America. America is the President on an international level, whether we love or hate any particular President. And Oliver Stone is so obsessed with his personal hate that he doesn’t seem to care what damage he does. He seems willing to do anything to place a(nother) blemish on President Bush, even if it means hurting every American and every American President to come.

This film, a supposed biography of President Bush – that seems to be focused squarely on the past according to the trailer - looks dumb. What may be even more dumb is that it was greenlighted by a Hollywood studio, and that actors of ability have taken several prominent roles.

Josh Brolin, Elizabeth Banks, Ioann Gruffudd, Ellen, Burstyn, should all be embarrassed that they would do this to an American President. I really thing that James Cromwell, Richard Dreyfuss, and Scott Glenn should have known better. I mean they couldn’t wait until President Bush finished his term of office?

And as for Jeffery Wright and Thandie Newton I am at a loss. Do they believe that a movie built upon diminishing the office of the President of the United States is going to help their careers or in any way highlight African Americans (who are routinely seen and expected to be Democrats only) in a positive light? Colin Powell and Condelezza Rice have succeeded in becoming exceptional political figures, a fact that did not exist in any other Presidency before President Bush. And Wright and Newton believe that a film that insults America is the best way to immortalize these 2 accomplished, educated, Black figures? I think they deserve far better.

I will show this movie trailer clip. Because I do believe in Freedom of Speech and artistic expression. But I in no way suggest that anyone should see this film. I in no way support any actor’s portrayal in this film. I denounce what Oliver Stone has done, and am angry at Thandie Newton and Jeffery Wright.



Could I be wrong about the film? Until it is released sure, and it is mathematically probable that I can fly, piss on the sun and put it out, and/or suddenly have a stroke and thus believe that Code Pink and San Francisco know what they are doing. But back in the real world, Oliver Stone is doing a wretched thing.

Imagine if someone did a hatchet job on President Clinton and Hillary back when he was in office while doing Ms. Lewinsky with a cigar; the Democrats and Hollywood would be raging and the nation embarrassed. How is this different?

The Ohio Democratic Presidential debate

My initial impressions of the Democratic Presidential debate in Ohio are that this is turning out to be quite a match. So far Senator Clinton has been quite forceful in trying to make a stand on universal healthcare, and to a lesser extent Iraq. NAFTA was a sore point.

I found her whining about getting the first question on issues she has made comments on and obviously wanted to answer, and suggesting that Obama should be offered a pillow – like on Saturday Night Live – less than Presidential and weak. And for the record she has only gotten the first question 6 out of 10 times including this debate where she chose to answer the open question to both candidates.

Her seeming demand that her plan was better and that professionals thought so fell flat. She did not answer the question of what is affordable, and if she would cause penalties to come out of the paychecks of those that do not accept her plan. Obama made a good case why children need to be covered and parents will chose to be covered if given an affordable option.

I think it looked bad that Clinton would not let the issue end and had to try to get the last word in on that issue, as well as several others. I’m upset that 16 minutes were spent on universal healthcare because Senator Clinton did not agree with Senator Obama. Especially since this is not a program that exists right now, and other questions on issues that do exist were not able to be asked of either candidate.

In terms of NAFTA, her answers were weak. She had the worst answer possible about her promise to Upstate New York. In her bid to gain the Senatorship, she promised to create 200,000 jobs. What has actually happened is that 30,000 jobs left since she has been elected. That is a fact. The reason why was,

“Because I thought Al Gore would be President.”

A leader should not promise things they cannot deliver. A leader should make clear that a plan that requires unknown probabilities is not a promise. Because I can tell you many in Binghamton NY, where I now reside, remember the promise that was made and the numerous jobs that have been lost since that time; and how the area in Central New York is suffering.

Iraq is a big issue for both candidates. I personally do not agree with either of their positions. Thus rather than addressing how they debated this point, I will simply state that they both claim plans towards leaving Iraq.

I will say that on the issue of experience, which Senator Clinton claims Obama does not have, Senator Obama made a very good stand. He clearly outlined that his comments about acting against Al Quida in Pakistan back in the summer of 2007 is exactly what America recently did in killing the number 3 man in that organization.

I found the comments by Senator Clinton, butting in on the denouncement of Senator Obama to Minister Farrakhan because of his anti-Semitic comments, rude and unnecessary. It was an obvious try to try to corner Senator Obama as somehow being connected to Islam and the Nation of Islam. She attempted to embarrass Obama, asking him to reject on top of renounce Minister Farrakhan. To her annoyance, I imagine, he reiterated that he did both, renounce and reject. But what that had to do with her trying to get in that she supports Israel and Jewish people is beyond me.

In the closing statements based on the question what does your opponent need to do to win the nomination the answers were very telling. Senator Obama stated that Clinton was qualified and more worthy than Senator McCain, and took about 2 minutes in lauding her before he mentioned why he is after the nomination and why he felt he was better. Senator Clinton, by contrast opened with what made them both good candidates. She spent a minute discussing how “we are qualified” and “they both wanted the best for America” before continuing on her self-promotion.

Oh her not so subtle inclusion of gender seemed a pandering move towards women. As if she was the only one to be a history making candidate. That playing to women, almost as a fear tactic, was her battlecry. This contrasts the fact that Senator Obama never felt the need to emphasize that he is African American and that he would be making history and that this was the chance for Blacks to “change the playing field” as Senator Clinton implored.

Overall I felt Obama won the debate. He did not feel the need to press Clinton into a corner. He showed a very Presidential stance in that he took her attacks and rather than attack back he just answered the question. Unlike Clinton, Obama does not seem to need to hammer a fight to finality.

Perhaps the most telling thing is that Clinton felt the need to be unequivocal and final in her position about how Obama dealt with Farrakhan – a point that she was not involved with at all. She closed all options and demanded a response that met her standard. Obama worked as a facilitator, having a position and willing to take the extra step to get to a conclusion that he already agreed with.

That is the potential Presidents that we see. In Senator Clinton, a President that will demand and fight to get only and exactly what she wants, at whatever cost. In Senator Obama, a President that is level headed and willing to bend as long as he is in the direction he believes is right. Considering the differences between the Democratic and Republican political parties, which do you, think will be most likely to pass laws that the candidates are basing their nominations on?

Deserters deserve punishment

Hear is something that I’m sure few thought about while having their turkey, ham and stuffing. Deserters. Not the pie you had after the meal but those who have run away from their oath and country. As you may note I’m not happy about the subject.

Why am I even thinking about this? This is the title of a press release I found on Yahoo news, Army desertion rate up 80 pct. since '03. Sounds horrific doesn’t it. It sounds like our troops are running from Iraq, Afghanistan and service they volunteered for in droves. Of course this is not true.

I’m annoyed by the tone the piece sets, starting with the opening paragraph.

“Soldiers strained by six years at war are deserting their posts at the highest rate since 1980, with the number of Army deserters this year showing an 80 percent increase since the United States invaded Iraq in 2003.”

Sounds impressive. Sounds like there is a problem and our soldiers are being affected by it. It sounds like droves of our service men and women cannot handle the situation. Of course it’s not until the 5th paragraph we find out that the number of deserters is less than 5%. In fact the number is close to 3%. Of course that’s considering the troops in Iraq. If we look at the total number of troops, in the Army that’s roughly 1.05 million alone, the number percentage drops even lower. And of course the article never states where those troops desert from, whether it’s Iraq or the middle of Texas. Takes the wind out of this story doesn’t it?

In essence I’m annoyed with reporters, like Lolita C. Baldor, and major news agencies who carefully phrase an article to project a certain view which places our troops in danger. This article may have been made in the U.S., but who do you think is interested in it?

Perhaps some of those setting roadside bombs and recruiting members to attack our troops have downloaded this article – thanks to our troops providing them with electric power – and lauded the thought that our Armed Forces are running away in droves. Perhaps Osama Bin Laden is using this type of article to add members to Al Quida, and training them to come to fight us, abroad or here in our homes, because he is the David placing fear in our Goliath.

Articles worded like this are political agendas, but they can also be propaganda for those that would see every American dead whether we fight them or not, simple because we exist in a country where women wear clothes they chose, believe in a God other than theirs (of forbid the thought don’t believe or pray differently), and educate children.

One thing this article does remind me about though is the cavalier way that deserters are being treated so far. I am biased so I have no problem with shooting deserters in a time of war, especially those that desert combat. The oath taken by those that choose to serve this nation is both an honorable act and serious. No one forced them to join, or to take that oath. To desert it is both cowardly and dishonorable.

But at this point, nothing is being done. Deserters are merely being discharged with less-than-honorable records. That’s it. Now I’m sure some corporations and business owners can connect the dots and refuse to hire these individuals that have turned their back on their own nation. I’m equally sure there are some organizations that will be happy to hire them. I am of the former and not the latter of course.

Still it seems that this is too little. At least Canada is taking action in this matter, refusing to grant asylum to those deserting their oath. Amazing that Canada will act on this issue while we have not so far.

I don’t care what the reasons, those that desert are cowards. They had a choice to not join. Like all things in life there is a consequence for every action. One consequence has been the ability of some writers to infer and proclaim problems where they don’t really exist. Another is aiding the enemies of this nation, giving them fuel by which other members of the Armed Forces who value their word and the responsibility they have taken on die. I think having a penalty applied to these deserters is the least we can do. Perhaps rescinding the birthright they so callously violate.

**This can also be seen at All American Blog, where I am a contributing author.**

The Iraq report and politics Part 2 - 9.10.2007.2

Continued from The Iraq report and politics Part 1...

When Generals state, as many have said from day one, that this will be a long term battle (some even stating it could take up to a decade) all politicians ignored the statements and left the troops ill-equipped for the challenges that have faced them. I believe all the politicians were afraid of telling such a truth to their constituents. To make such a statement would easily open them up to challengers and cost them elections. Rather they all stated, initially, that this could be resolved quickly and with little loss of American life. Obviously they were wrong and the Generals were correct.

This is an interesting question facing the next President and the nation as a whole. This may well be the single most important issue facing America in the next 10 years, definitely the next 5. If we run, we will lose respect as a nation among other nations and fanatical groups across the world. Without a strong resolution, enemies of our nation will simply conclude that the will of America is weak and if they can out-wait the initial onslaught against them the commitment against them will crumble and fade. That is a troubling image to present to the world.

On the other side is the fact that if we stand and fight until we succeed, we will suffer internally as political groups drive a wedge between various factions within the nation. As families lose loved ones, which is an inevitable outcome of warfare, the divisions will grow as will the anger of nations around the world.

The answer is a difficult one. Like most answers, the middle ground is best, but hard to maintain. Since we have not decided to make Iraq a commonwealth, which I feel is the only winning strategy, we must seek the most reasonable outcome. Emphasizing the political aspects may allow elections to go in one direction or another, but such posturing will cause greater damage, in my opinion. I see that right now, all the candidates are posturing for votes as opposed to having their own convictions. The only 2 frontrunners that are perhaps convincingly maintaining their positions without regard to politics are Senator McCain and Obama. Both are somewhat blindsided though, I believe.

So the questions we must ask ourselves, are the presidential candidates taking positions that are the best for the nation, or the best to gain politically? Do we want a President, or any political leader, that cannot adjust their position based on the facts as they are presented? Can we have political leaders that can tell us the truth, and act in the best manner for the nation regardless of the backlash that short-term emotions ultimately evoke?

If we fail in this matter, if we act impulsively and without long-term foresight, we will suffer for perhaps decades. There are many issues involved in the current war, Iran, terrorist groups (not the concept of terrorism) like Al Quida, Israel, America’s prominence in the world, and yes oil too. If we just focus on one item at the exclusion of the others, we will fail to do the best thing. Again I mention best, not right. While I wish we could follow a path that is ideal, the reality is that there is no such path to take in regard to the current situation.

But this is what I think, what do you think?

Comments on the National Intelligence Estimate Part 2 - 7.23.2007.2

Continued from Comments on the National Intelligence Estimate Part 1...

But that would ignore the benefits I received. Beyond the improved health and fitness that was an immediate result were the less obvious benefits. My self-discipline was heightened and has helped me every day since graduating the Island. My attention to detail has allowed me to perform my work more efficiently. I have greater self-confidence thus helping me succeed in careers I never thought I would take on, like becoming a successful stockbroker, or working overseas in import-export in Moscow. My determination to excel has lead to me building a business that now comprises several divisions.

Such are the benefits of actions that happened 20 years ago, that an outside observer at the time would imply were negatives.

Such is a similar point made by Senator Bond.

“Your news analysis asks, “Are we safer?” The answer is emphatically yes. Our efforts to combat terrorism worldwide have prevented Al Qaeda from attacking the United States since Sept. 11, 2001, and have disrupted known terrorist plots to carry out further attacks on American soil.”

In any path there are hardships and loss. The goal, if worthwhile, is always difficult to attain in the simplest description. But when politics are used to incite emotion, and to interpret results the results will never be the best.

The war on terror has worked. The fact that we have not lost thousands of lived of average citizens proves that. 300 million Americans sleep safer today because of the efforts of our Armed Forces. That is a fact proven not in some flashy ad, or neat accounting numbers, but in the least glamorous ability of waking up and going to work routinely.

Could there have been better decisions? Yes. Could the Iraq and Pakistani governments be more helpful and effective? Absolutely. Is there a danger to the average citizen if we quickly retreat from Iraq?

“It [the NIE] makes clear that the threat from Al Qaeda in Iraq is not just to Iraqis — it’s to the U.S. homeland as well.”

Forget the politics. Don’t think of who will be the next President. The current issue is what we are doing now, and how that will affect us in the future. Rushing headlong into a situation is not an answer. Acting on emotion, whipped up because of one political preference or another, is foolhardy. And in my opinion any that would promote action without thought of consequences is foolhardy, even if they might think their action beneficial.

Without delving for implication, the NIE states there is good and bad in regard to our actions in Iraq. The best course of action is the planning and implementing of actions that improve the bad and continue the good. It may not be good for a soundbite, but it is good for the nation. Partisan politics are a great thing, in peacetime. Effective plans of action are best now.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Comment by Rudy Giuliani - 4.25.2007.1

The Presidential candidates for the Democratic Party are in a rage. I know no surprise. What might be the reason this time? Comments from a Republican Presidential candidate. To be specific Mr. Rudy Giuliani. The comment that has caused this rage is reported as follows, “if a Democrat is elected, ‘it sounds to me like we're going on defense. We're going to wave the white flag there.’ But, he said, if a Republican wins, ‘we will remain on offense’ trying to anticipate what the terrorists are going to do and ‘trying to stop them before they do it."

So far all the Democratic hopefuls have defended themselves and claimed that this is a false comment, that it is an attempt to inspire fear and capitalize on a tragedy. I find that interesting since I cannot see how it is wrong. Every Republican candidate has said the same thing as Mr. Giuliani to some degree. Many Democratic lawmakers have also said this. So I must ask, how is fighting a war in a manner similar to a wrestling or boxing match a winning strategy? How is fighting on an exact and unyielding timetable, that does not consider the ramifications from the aftermath of suddenly abandoning a fight (or call it troop withdrawal if that feels better), increase the safety of Americans at home? I have yet to hear an answer on how that will happen. I have yet to hear how retreating (defined as: an act or process of withdrawing especially from what is difficult, dangerous, or disagreeable) makes us safer as a nation. If a Democrat can answer that direct question I may change my opinion, but to date not one has.

To be fair, no Republican has an answer on how long troops will be needed in Iraq, or how much money will be required to stabilize that nation. Not a single guess, though I believe it will take 5-10 years if the current pace is maintained. I can’t even guess at the cost, maybe 3x what has been spent to date. It’s not cheap, but then again “freedom is not free.”

I have to say that I’m not surprised. The current name-calling was apparent since before the mid-term elections. Some may recall when I mentioned, “What exactly is the Democratic platform on Iraq. No longer can the statement “we need a change” be the answer. The fact is we need a detailed description of what that change is. And it will be the Democratic Party that must be held accountable for what they define as needed change.”

To date we have been given an answer, though it is hardly detailed. The answer is leave Iraq as quickly as possible. But Democrats will not accept accountability for this decision. Rather than defunding the war which would pass, if it were the voice of the people to end the war without winning as they say it is, they are delaying providing fund. They are pushing forward bills that are known to be vetoed by the Commander-and-Chief and blaming the President for delays. This is while stating on national news (which has been shown world-wide to friends and enemies of this nation alike) “I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense and — you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows — (know) this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday.” While in any war there are days of large losses, it does not mean that the war is lost. There are numerous examples of this in every war including both theatres of WWI and WWII.

But if Majority leader Senator Reid is correct, how do we stop Al Quida and other groups or nations that oppose the American way of life from gathering strength and attacking our nation again? While winning the war may not be popular it does hold the foresight that may protect the nation from some major attacks. What protects the nation if we run away? Where is the foresight that will keep Americans safe in their homes and jobs? It’s not enough to make a half-step; we must know what the next part to their plan is. Only then can we, the citizens, then make a choice on what is the direction the nation should take. That is non-partisan, and in the best interest of the nation. Anything less is just politicking and will cost lives, I believe.

It’s not a Republican view to continue to fight, nor Democratic to retreat. They are views to secure the ability of America to maintain its security. But the former looks to the future, the latter just the present. If we chose a President that can only see the trees and not the forest then I fear what may happen as our children become young adults and inherit our unfinished gaffes.

This is what I think, what do you think?