My Television Screen Is Becoming A Garbage Can

Harlingen, Texas, January 19, 2006:  I have always been a news junkie, but lately I am finding it more and more difficult to keep my eyes on the tube when it is tuned in to any cable news network.  The reason for my ire is simple...These news outlets have turned my television screen into a garbage can.

By that I mean that nowadays the entire viewing surface seems to be filled with assorted junk.  Most of what we are being subjected to is just self-promotion for the show being aired or the station being telecast.  The other distracting additions have very little to do with the news being presented at that moment and could wait for a less invasive time to flash onto the screen.

If I am recalling correctly, this all started a few years back when cable was presenting lengthy time blocks of hearings, trials, or congressional actions.  To keep viewers abreast of the news, they started running streamers at the bottom of the screen that contained news headlines.  From that point on, they added more and more, from logos to stock reports.  The end result are the most junkyard looking news presentations found anywhere.

Today on CNN News, at the bottom of the screen there was #1 A show name slug line, #2 A Banner containing the logo CNN, followed by the name of the person speaking, #3 The topic being discussed alternating with the speakerÍs name.  #4 Stocks were displayed in the viewerÍs right hand corner.  #5 The final addition was streaming headlines.

Switching over to CNN Headline News at the bottom of my screen was #1 The news topic slug.  #2 A banner with the words CNN Headline News on the viewer left. #3 Under the logo on the left was the Time.  #4 On the viewer right were the stocks.  #5 We had streaming headlines… and #6 There was the word LIVE in the upper right corner.

At MSNBC there were, #1 Two large MSNBC background logos.  #2 A banner containing the show title.  #3Under the banner was the name of the anchorperson, rotating with the topic being covered.  #4 In the right corner was the MSNBC logo again, along with the stock market report.… and #5, The streaming headlines.

CNBC managed to be even more cluttered.  There were, #1 Stock reports streaming across the top of the screen.  In the upper left there was, #2 A logo followed by the word LIVE and under that the city originating the telecast.  At the bottom of the screen we had , #3 Two lines of streaming stocks...and #4, On the lower right the CNBC logo.

However, winner of the race to turn television screen into a garbage can goes indisputably to Fox News Channel.  I go to this cable outlet far more than any other, but on this day it also seemed even more cluttered than usual.  Neil Cavuto was interviewing Vice President Cheney.  Behind the vice president were two screens that filled the background.  They both contained the words #1 Our World w/ Cavuto.  Rotating in the upper right viewers corner were, #2 The words FOX, followed by the word NEWS.  In the lower left viewers corner was, #3 A rotating box containing the words Fox News. Under that box was, #4 The time of day, alternating with the word Channel.  Moving to the lower right was, #5 The current stock market status.  #6 There was a banner containing the words Our World w Cavuto.  Under it the viewer found, #7 A slug line on the topic being covered.… and #8 Those always present streaming headlines.

I can only speak for this household, but we all find the constant promos and repetition of names, topics and headlines to be very condescending.  When I tune in a program, I am well aware of the station dialed.  When I am watching something on television, I donÍt think enough time will lapse for me to forget the station being viewed.  It is nice, from time to time, to know how the stock market is performing, but I could really wait until the end of the program for this information. 

As for those streaming headlines...If they are that important, let the talking head on the screen voice them for us.  But, please television executives, do something about all that garbage you keep piling up on the tube.  It is really getting to be more than a body can stand.

Could Attitudes Concerning John Murtha Be Changing?

Harlingen, Texas, January 17, 2006:  Cracks in the positive media spin of Democrat Anti-War spokesman Representative John Murtha have started to appear in a number of places, including mainstream and online news outlets.

There are sources, however, such as the Independent Media Center that maintain the anti-war stance of most reporting entities.  In its “The Corner” editorial column on January 14, IMC praised the meeting between the leadership of anti American “Code Pink” activists, Representatives Jim Moran (D-VA) and John Murtha (D-PA)

Code Pink, which has given financial support to terrorists and called upon American soldiers to kill their leaders, is also known for displaying protest signs at the funerals of fallen American heroes.  At this meeting they gave Murtha a “pink badge of courage” and thanked him for his courageous stand on Iraq.  The leadership also said, “They will be working with Representative Murtha to deliver kindness and support to the wounded soldiers.”

As reported in the Independent Media Center account, “A minority of pro war voices, along with many varying degrees of protest and criticism of the Bush administration were heard from the audience questioning the Democratic congressmen, both known for their support of the military...”

A more important Murtha/Moran story would be the dressing down these congressmen took from a soldier recently returned from Afghanistan.  Sergeant Mark Seavey served there until last month as an infantry squad leader.

As reported by columnist Michelle Malkin, the soldier confronted Democrat Reps Jim Moran and John Murtha at a town hall meeting in Arlington, Virginia.  She reports his comments left them speechless when he talked about their actions hurting the troops.  He also asked them where they were getting their information about morale issues, finishing his statement saying, “If I didn’t have a herniated disc now I would volunteer to go to Iraq in a second with my troops, three of which have already volunteered to go to Iraq.  I keep hearing you say you talk to the troops and the troops are demoralized, and I really resent that characteration.  The morale of the troops I talk to is phenomenal...” He concluded saying, “I donÍt know who you two are talking to but the morale of the troops is very high.”

Others are also starting to question Murtha, and making it into print or online with their comments.  Cybercast News Service ran a column on January 13 questioning the war hero status of the congressman.  It reports that Murtha’s accounts of his war wounds “may also conflict with the available U.S. Marine medical records obtained by the media.” The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has reported that casualty records show Murtha was injured in hostile actions near Danang, Vietnam on March 22 and May 7, 1967. “In the first incident, his right cheek was lacerated, and in the second, he was lacerated above the left eye.  Neither injury required evacuation,” the Post-Gazette reported.

However, Murtha has given a number of different accounts about how he was wounded.  He claims to have been “wounded in the arm with shrapnel”… “My knee and my arm were banged up when a helicopter was shot down”… He was “struck in the ankle by a shot that ricocheted off a helicopter”.

One source, a World War II veteran Harry M. Fox, who worked for Representative John Saylor (R-PA) in 1968 has claimed Murtha personally asked the congressman for assistance in obtaining the Purple Hearts, but was turned down because Saylor’s office found there was not sufficient evidence of wounds.

Another person questioning Murtha’s account of his wounds is a former Democratic congressional colleague and decorated Vietnam veteran Don Bailey of Pennsylvania.  He alleges that during a conversation on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, Murtha told him he did not deserve his Purple Hearts.  “Murtha is putting himself forward as some combat veteran with serious wounds and he’s using that and it’s dishonest and wrong,"said Bailey.

Murtha has publicly dismissed these charges saying he never asked for his medals and he is proud of his service in Vietnam. Still, it has been noted that like Democrat John Kerry, he has refused to release his military medical records.

The New York Post online edition has carried a scathing column by Kieran Lalor titled “Murtha The Turncoat”.  The column notes, “Thirty-seven years in the Marine Corps (reserve) should have taught Murtha that our military has historically been and continues to be the world’s greatest meritocracy.  No other institution has allowed people to climb the ranks and reach their potential regardless of their socioeconomic status like the U.S. Military.”

In another paragraph the columnist reflects, “Why would Murtha not want to be part of a military that in the past four years has liberated 50 million souls and heroically brought aid to tsunami and earthquake victims, saving untold lives?  Surely he knows that all was chaos in New Orleans in the wake of Katrina until General Russell HonoreÍs 1st Army and 82nd Airborne came to town and provided relief and a security presence?”

David Bellavia, a former Army Staff Sergeant who served with the 1st Infantry Division wrote in a WorldNetDaily article of December 16, 2005 about how he holds John Murtha in distain.  Bellavia, who has been recommended for the Medal of Honor and Distinguished Service Cross, has already received the Silver Star and the Bronze Star.  He says, “As the debris continues to settle from the explosion detonated by Representative John Murtha’s continued rapid fire defeatist comments this past week, I wonder how he expected his statements to be perceived.  As an infantryman whose boots are still caked with blood and dust from Iraq, I am beyond confused....”

He ends his article saying “As my peers continue to bleed for acceptance from a growingly cynical media, it must be stated:  We are not ‘broken’, we have never ‘terrorized Iraqis in their homes’ and we are most certainly not ‘living hand to mouth’.  Each day, the Iraqi War veteran grows closer to the embarrassing disrespect of the Vietnam warrior.  Each day, legislators like Rep. Murtha move us closer to losing a winnable war and abandoning a worthy ally.”

Former combat correspondent, author and retired Marine Charles W. Henderson has written “my only common ground with Murtha is that we both care greatly for our individual soldiers, sailors, coastguardsmen, airmen and Marines, and we place each of their lives at extremely high value.  I do not believe that such value is shared by most people in foggy bottom, and that may give fuel to Murtha’s ranting.  However, I see more political motivation coming from the veteran reserve Marine than one of genuine concern for our troops.  He is in lockstep with the Democrat agenda and using his Marine Corps and veteran ties as a shield to say the same things that the DNC and leadership have said for awhile.”

Individual members of the military community are also writing and letting their feelings be known.  Colonel Robert Geasland of Waynesville, North Carolina calls Murtha “Another cop-out artist who attempts to portray himself as a ‘hero’ with long service.  What it boils down to is that he went to the Reservist trough and collected bucks for little duty.” He also wrote that reservists called up for the first Gulf action were not prepared and required extensive re-training.  He concludes saying “Murtha falls into that category...a miserable cut and run Democrat in need of re-training.”

Colonel Bob Pappas, another retired Marine calls Murtha “a fair weather Reservist who during his years of reserve service evidentially wasn’t called on to do much, has now in consummate Democrat style stepped to the plate in a statement designed to ‘discourage’ parents from letting their children enlist and as far as this writer is concerned that is about as low as a politician can stoop.”

Dan Decker, a retired Air Force Technical Sergeant from Kerrville, Texas writes, “It is sad to see a vet like Murtha sell out in exchange for political gain.  But, perhaps it isn’t so surprising; we’ve had military traitors from the very beginning.  I’m thinking of Benedict Arnold.  I guess we can add John Murtha to that list.”

Even the Marine Corps League members are making their feelings known.  In a survey taken of several hundred of these former Marines, the vote was 50 to 1 in support of recommending the League speak out and officially condemn Murtha for his statements.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine General Peter Pace has now commented on the Murtha anti-war rhetoric.  His words have been carried by many of the mainstream media.  Says General Pace concerning John Murtha’s statement, “It’s damaging to recruiting; it’s damaging to the morale of the troops who are deployed; and it’s damaging to the morale of their families who believe in what they’re doing to serve this country.”

The general also noted, “We have almost 300 million Americans who are being protected by 2.4 million volunteer active, Guard and reserve members, and we must recruit to that force.”

When the Democrats found Murtha to be their anti-war poster boy, the feeling was he would be immune to any criticism.  That may have been true in November.  January came in with a much different tone in the air.

Terrorist Involvement - Was There Or Wasn't There?

Harlingen, Texas, January 9, 2006:  In the latest issue of The Weekly Standard there is an interesting article by Stephen F. Hayes titled “Saddam’s Terror Training Camps”.  In it the author reports the former Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein… “Trained thousands of radical Islamic terrorists from the region at camps in Iraq over four years immediately preceding the U.S. invasion, according to documents and photographs recovered by the U.S. military in postwar Iraq.”

Now this can’t possibly be correct.  The mainstream media and the liberal left have repeatedly told us there were no terrorists in Iraq and it was only the United States involvement in mid-east that brought terrorists into the country.  This is the stock statement when anything on the matter is broadcast or placed in print.  It would be difficult indeed, to find an article in the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times or the New York Times that makes those contrary statements penned by Stephen Hayes.

Many of the terrorists training in Iraqi camps were drawn from groups in northern Africa with close links to al Qaeda.  More than 2,000 were trained in Iraq and the author claims many have returned and are responsible for the attacks, which have taken place since the invasion.

How does Hayes justify these statements?  He says, “The photographs and documents on Iraqi training camps come from a collection of some 2 million exploitable items captured in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan.  They include handwritten notes, typed documents, audiotapes, videotapes, compact discs, floppy discs and computer hard drives.”

These could very well be the rantings of some very right wing conservative writer attempting to justify the Bush decision to continue the War of Terror by attacking Iraq.  That can be the only excuse other media sources could have for not reporting such important news.  The documentation is there for any other legitimate source to examine.

There are other reports too, which should have waved flags at traditional publications and launched them on an extensive investigation to disprove the facts being presented.

For example, those documents show that Abdul Rahman Yasin, the only member of the al Qaeda cell that detonated the bomb in the 1993 World Trade Center attack to remain at large, fled to Iraq, where he was given a house and a monthly salary.

An al Qaeda member now in United States custody has confessed that in the 1990s bin Laden made an agreement with Saddam Hussein to cease all terrorist attacks inside Iraq.

Another report has a former colonel in Saddam’s Fedayeen saying bin Laden’s fighters were in Iraq in 1997 and that he observed them in a training camp in Salman Pak, southeast of Baghdad.

Reports upon reports are available and could be reviewed by legitimate press services.  Little effort has been made by these media sources to make that information a central factor of the debate on why the war is being fought in Iraq.  Instead, from CNN News to the Democrat Bloggers and from party line newspapers to the New York Times, all the public hears are chants that “Bush Lied!”

Many of the facts mentioned in this article and in the Weekly Standard are contained in a book by Richard Minter titled “Losing bin Laden:  How Bill ClintonÍs Failures Unleashed Global Terror”, which was on the bestseller lists in 2003.  Mr. Minter is a senior fellow at the Center for the New Europe and his writings can also be found online at Tech Central Station.com.

These facts, according to the Weekly Standard article have come to light after translation of only 50,000 documents.  There has been so much intelligence uncovered that at the current rate of translation two more generations of language experts will be required to bring all the details to light.  But, even if that happens there will be those in government and the media who claim there was no involvement with al Qaeda and there was no terrorist activity in Iraq before the Americans launched their attack.

Washington Post Articles Show Bias by Omission

Harlingen, Texas, January 4, 2006:  We have frequently noted that the political leanings of mainstream media publications can often be seen by what fails to make it into print.  In the case of Jack Abramoff, political bias of the Washington Post is obvious in its articles of January 3 and 4. The first article written by William Branigin, Susan Schmidt and James V. Grimaldi and the article dated January 4 penned by only Schmidt and Grimaldi are littered with the names of Republican officials, aides and family members. The articles indicate all of these individuals are being investigated.  However, no mention of a Democrat appears in the text.

Today’s copy mentions former House majority leader Tom DeLay of Texas, Representative Robert W. Ney of Ohio, former Delay aides Tony Rudy, Michael Scanlon and Edwin Buckham, Senator Conrad Burns of Montana, Representative John T. Doolittle of California, Rudy’s wife Lisa and even DeLayês wife Christine in connection with an investigation into Abramoff’s admitted guilt on fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy to bribe public official plea bargain in the Washington U. S. District Court.  Their names appear repeatedly in both articles and total of 33 times in the January 4 copy.  This was done despite the Post indicating that in court papers, prosecutors refer to only one congressman: Rep. Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio).” The article continues saying “Abramoff, who built a political alliance with House Republicans, including former majority leader Tom DeLay of Texas, has agreed to provide information and testimony about a half a dozen House and Senate members...”

Though none of the Republicans named in the article have been charged with a crime, the names fill the Post article from beginning to end, without the name of a single Democrat being listed.  This serious omission occurs despite the fact that more than 100 Democrat officials have received contributions from Abramoff.  Among the top recipients of his generosity are Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), Patty Murray (D-Wash), Charles Rangel (D-NY), along with the current Senate minority leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) and former minority leader Tom Daschle.

Other prominent Democrats receiving money from Abramoff include Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Barney Frank (D-Mass), Dick Durbin (D-ILL), Fritz Hollings (D-SC) and House minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Cal).  Does this mean these Democrats are guilty of any crime?  Of course not...… But, it does mean the Washington Post has again failed to engage in objective reporting.