Posts Tagged ‘Maureen Dowd’

Turning The Tables On Vicious Rolling Stone Leftist Attack Piece On Michelle Palin (Among Other Things, They Plagiarized).

June 24, 2011

There was a particularly vicious leftwing assault by leftwing rag The Rolling Stone. The only time I ever hear anything about Rolling Stone Magazine is when they do something particularly vile, because on their best day they are still vile and so why read them?  Their last infamous hit piece (on General Stanley McChrystal) was also filled with fraud.  But what can you say?  Liberals are people who swim in an ocean of lies; and why should they be troubled when the people they trust to lie to them turn out to be dishonest???

There are such lines in the Rolling Stone piece as “Bachmann is a religious zealot whose brain is a raging electrical storm of divine visions and paranoid delusions.” I don’t need to read further than that. It was a toxic, rabid hit piece by toxic, rabid secular humanist liberals.

But let us consider the “standards” of journalism that these people follow. Let us consider who the REAL religious zealots whose brains are raging electrical storms of demonic visions and paranoid delusions are. Let us consider who should have the last laugh, and who should be fired as disgraces:

Rolling Stone caught in potential plagiarism flap over Michele Bachmann profile
By Joe Pompeo & Dylan Stableford
June 24, 2011

It’s been a few months since we’ve had ourselves a good-old plagiarism incident to get riled up about. But thanks to Rolling Stone, our sleepy summer Friday just got a bit more scandalous!

The magazine is taking some heat today for lifting quotes in Matt Taibbi’s hit piece on Minnesota’s 2012 Tea Party hopeful Michele Bachmann.

In the story, posted online Wednesday, Taibbi borrows heavily from a 2006 profile of Bachmann by G.R. Anderson, a former Minneapolis City Pages reporter who now teaches journalism at the University of Minnesota. The thin sourcing, as Abe Sauer argues over at The Awl, is part of a “parade of uncredited use of material” from local blogs and reporters who “have dogged Bachmann for years now.”

But the larger issue for journalism’s ethical watchdogs concerns the several unattributed quotes Sauer spotted in Taibbi’s piece, which Rolling Stone executive editor Eric Bates explained away by saying he’d cut out the attributions due to “space concerns” and that he would “get some links included in the story online.”

At least one plagiarism “expert” doesn’t buy Bates’ logic.

“Attribution is the last thing an editor should cut!!!!” Jack Shafer, who is known to grill copy-stealers in his media column for Slate (and who used to edit two alt-weeklies similar to City Pages), told The Cutline via email. “How big was the art hole on that piece? Huge, I’ll bet.”

Shafer added: “If an editor deletes attribution, can the writer be called a plagiarist? I don’t think so. Is that what happened? If Taibbi approved the deletions, it’s another question.”

We emailed Taibbi, who is no stranger to press controversies, with a request for comment and will update this if we hear back.

UPDATE 4 p.m. “I did in fact refer to the City Pages piece in the draft I submitted,” Taibbi told The Cutline. “I did not see that those attributions had been removed. I grew up in alternative newspapers and have been in the position the City Pages reporter is in, so I’m sympathetic. They did good work in that piece and deserve to be credited. But you should know also that this isn’t plagiarism–it’s not even an allegation of plagiarism. It’s an attribution issue.”

In the meantime, Anderson is giving Rolling Stone the benefit of the doubt, although he didn’t let them off the hook entirely.

“I would not consider what the Rolling Stone [piece] contained in it to be plagiarism,” Anderson told City Pages. “What I will say, as a graduate of the Columbia J-School, and an adjunct at the University of Minnesota J-School, I do know that if a student handed in a story with that particular lack of sourcing, not only would I give it an ‘F,’ I would probably put that student on academic fraud.”

You can check out a side-by-side comparison of the two Bachmann profiles over at The Awl.

What is particularly ironic is the use of an image of Michelle Bachmann as holy warrior, gripping the Bible in one hand and a sword dripping in blood in the other as a bloody slaughter continues unabated in the background. It’s an image that is intended to summon the most grisly spectre of the Crusades, of course.

Accompanying the Rolling Stone article on Bachmann:

At the worst of the Crusades, the “Christian warriors” were given Absolution for their sins for taking part in the Holy War. You could literally get away with murder. And too many did just that (at least until they found out the hard way that the Pope’s absolution didn’t give them absolution from a just and holy God).

Now, let us consider the irony of the “Absolution” given by the left. Women are sacred cows (now watch me get attacked as calling women “cows”) in liberalism. You do not DARE attack women. Unless they are conservative women like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann. And then liberals are given total Absolution to attack them as women, as wives, as mothers, as sexual beings, as anything that smears them and degrades them. And they have absolution to do it; no women’s group will come after them. Their sins are pardoned.

Call it a leftwing Crusade; better yet, call it a leftwing jihad.  “Kill thee all the enemies of liberalism.  Nullus Dues lo volt! [No God wills it!].  Thous hast absolution to murder thine opponents by any means necessary!”  And off these “journalists” (or JournoLists) go to do their demonic bidding.

A similar case of such liberal Absolution just occurred with Jon Stewart, who mocked black conservative Herman Cain in an obviously racial and racist manner using his Amos and Andy voice. It’s fine; a Jon Stewart liberal can openly racially mock a black man, provided that black man is a conservative. It’s no different than the most cynical criticism of Pope Pius in the Crusades, who said it was okay to murder as long as you were murdering a Muslim.

We see their “objective” work when they flood to Alaska to search through tens of thousands of Sarah Palin emails and even enlist their readers to help them dig for dirt.  They never would have DREAMED of subpeoning Barak Obama’s emails.  We see their “objective” work when they trip all over themselves to buy a story about a bogus lesbian Muslim heroine (i.e. more liberal fraud) just because she was lesbian and Muslim, and that’s exactly what they wanted to see.

I would love nothing more than to have all the Western “journalists” who have played these games grabbed up and taken to a country governed by Islam and watch the look on their formerly smug faces as they were tortured and killed one after another. Until that day, they will continue to serve as useful idiots for communism and terrorism and pretty much every other “ism” that is eroding Western Culture from within.

Add that abject hypocrisy of the left to the fact that for a writer anything resembling plagiarism is the greatest sin imaginable, and you get to see just how utterly vile these people are. They have no honor, no integrity, no decency. Period.

And then we compare the sheer number of plagiarism cases at leftwing papers such as the New York Times (I’ll just drop a couple of names like Jayson Blair and Maureen Dowd and Zachery Kouwe) to conservative papers like the Wall Street Journal, and you see which side simply has no honor, integrity, or decency at all.  But what should we expect from such a rabid little bunch of Goebbels?  Honesty?

It is also interesting to add that the Crusaders were in fact responding to CENTURIES of Muslim aggression. While many of the monstrous acts that occurred on both sides could never be justified, “the Crusades” themselves were quite justifiable. I make mention of this because the left continues to do to the Crusades what they are doing even today; take the side of the aggressive vicious murderers against Western Culture. And when you look at a major rundown of major plagiarism cases in journalism, it’s the leftwing names like the Washington Post and the Boston Globe and ESPN rather than Fox News.

When America is sufficiently toxic and ripe for judgment, it listens to lies and the bad people who tell those lies and votes for Democrats.  That’s basically where we seem to be now.

Oh, by the way, Barack Obama is a documented plagiarist, too.  That’s part of the reason liberal journalists love him so much; he’s truly one of them.

Democrats Censure Joe Wilson In Spite of Own Lies And Hypocrisy

September 15, 2009

I – like most Republicans – understand that Rep. Joe Wilson exercised something less than great judgment in his outburst during the Obama speech to the Congress.  But for some reason I just can’t muster up the outrage that Democrats bitterly cling to.

Barack Obama himself actually started the “You lie!” war in his speech:

Some of people’s concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost.  The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens.  Such a charge would be laughable if it weren’t so cynical and irresponsible.  It is a lie, plain and simple.

To which I can only blurt out, “You lie!”

When Obama appoints Ezekiel Emanuel as his health policy adviser who is on the record saying just this year:

The Complete Lives system justifies preference to younger people because of priority to the worst-off rather than instrumental value.”

And:

Treating 65-year olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not.”

And when Obama appoints a regulatory czar like Cass Sunstein who is on record saying:

“I urge that the government should indeed focus on life-years rather than lives. A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people.”

And:

Other things being equal, a program that protects young people seems far better than one that protects old people, because it delivers greater benefits.”

Well, I think that Republicans are more than justified in pointing out that the president who calls them liars is actually the one who is the liar.

That, and the fact that it is now a matter of fact that when Joe Wilson shouted “You lie!” as Obama said that illegal immigrants would not be covered, it was Joe Wilson who was telling the truth.  The Democrats have SINCE began to deal with that reality.

But in any event, the Democrats today decided they would make a public spectacle out of demagoguing a man who had twice apologized for not apologizing.

Nancy Pelosi initially said she would move on after Wilson publicly apologized for his emotional outburst.  And Barack Obama – the allegedly offended party – accepted the apology.

Or did he?

Did the president decide to bury the hatchet in Joe Wilson’s head?  Because somebody’s hatchet men suddenly went on the warpath on Joe Wilson.  It’s kind of nice to put on the face of the One who is loftily above partisanship while your thugs go out on the attack.  For example:

Rep. Joe Wilson’s outburst last week drew new recriminations from his colleagues Tuesday, with a member of the Congressional Black Caucus suggesting that a failure to rebuke the South Carolina Republican would be tantamount to supporting the most blatant form of organized racism in American history.

Making an obvious reference to the Ku Klux Klan, Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., said Tuesday that people will be putting on “white hoods and white uniforms again and riding through the countryside” if emerging racist attitudes, which he says were subtly supported by Wilson, are not rebuked.  He said Wilson must be disciplined as an example.

Given Hank Johnson’s racist statement, it is rather ironic that the Ku Klux Klan was created by Democrats to thwart the rise of the Party of Lincoln in the South.  And that the Democratic National Convention of 1924 was so dominated by the Klan that it went down in infamy as “the Klanbake.”

And that just dovetailed right along with New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd who could have sworn she heard Joe Wilson use a polite euphamism for “nigger” in Joe Wilson’s remark:

But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!

Well, sure it’s fair, Maureen.  Everyone knows that liberal journalists are allowed to make up facts and assign the harshest possible motives to their stories.  It’s called propaganda.  And mainstream journalists embrace it like lovers for their ideology and their party.

For liberals like Hank Johnson and Maureen Dowd, facts don’t matter.  Their souls swim in a sea of lies.

Democrats couldn’t help but assign racist motives to a statement that had nothing to do with race.  Because that is just the kind of vile, racist, brain-diseased cockroaches that they are.

The House voted that it was a breech of decorum for Wilson to shout, “You lie!”  And it was.

But this, apparently, was NOT a breech of decorum for the most partisan and most nakedly ideological Party and politicians in American history:

Some transcribed highlights from Democrat Rep. Pete Stark’s remarks on the House floor toward President George W. Bush:

The Republicans are worried that we can’t pay for insuring an additional 10 million children. They sure don’t care about finding $200 billion to fight the illegal war in Iraq. Where you going to get that money. You gonna tell us lies like you’re telling us today? Is that how you’re going to fund the war. You don’t have enough money to fund the war or children. But you’re going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President’s amusement…

…But the President Bush’s statements about children’s health shouldn’t be taken any more seriously than his lies about the war in Iraq. The truth is that Bush just likes to blow things up in Iraq, in the United States, and in Congress.

Apparently, any reasonable person is supposed to be able to understand why the two words spoken by Joe Wilson were horrendous, but the ugly and hateful accusations that accompanied the charge of lying were not.

Democrat Barbara Lee is quoted from the House floor as saying:

“I have been appalled by the growing evidence that the President may have lied about the reasons for invading and conquering Iraq.”

And let us not forget Democrats by the dozens booing and shouting “NO!” at George Bush during his 2005 State of the Union address must not have been a breech of decorum either.

Democrats rudely interrupted President Bush to jeer and applaud their own obstruction of crucial legislation to try to fix Social Security:

And the Gateway Pundit shows that one of the jeering Democrats was one Barack Hussein Obama.

So you’re just going to have to pardon me for not thinking, “My gosh, these Republicans are just so awful!  Good thing the Democrats are the party of wonderfulness.  No Democrat would ever do anything nasty like that!  They need to hold that awful Republican responsible!”

Because I have a brain – and the thing actually works.

That separates me from congressional Democrats.

President Obama himself suggested that a formal rebuke of Mr. Wilson would be a distraction from the larger debate. “I mean, it just becomes a big circus instead of focusing on health care,” Mr. Obama said.

So let’s just realize that even President Obama is pointing out that Congress has important business to attend to, but that DEMOCRATS are refusing to do their duty in favor of the demagoguery and partisanship of the “big circus.”

James Clyburn, who has been the lead rabble-rouser in the witch hunt, had this to say:

This is not a partisan stunt,” said Clyburn, whose district in South Carolina adjoins Wilson’s. “I do not participate in partisan stunts, and I think every member here knows that. This is about the proper decorum that should take place on the floor of the United States House of Representatives.”

But every member probably knows that Clyburn was in fact such a player in “partisan stunts” that he once said that good news in Iraq amounted to a problem for Democrats.  If every member of Congress doesn’t realize that hoping for your own side to lose a war for the sake of partisan political advantage is anything less than the most gross and contemptible sort of partisan stunt, then this country is surely doomed.

Not to mention the fact that James Clyburn – who is clearly so interested in “proper decorum” now – didn’t give a fig about it when it was Democrats who were repeatedly violating that decorum.

Democrats have the power to force through whatever resolution they want.

But anyone who thinks that it’s anything other than a partisan distraction and witch hunt by a nasty group of Democrat politicians is a fool.

For what it’s worth, if I were a Republican, I would be inclined to vote to censure Joe Wilson for his out-of-bounds comment.  But I would only do so if every episode of the Democrats’ vile conduct over the last eight years were read into the record so we can appreciate just who these self-righteous hypocrite accusers truly are.