What is Black and White and Yellow all Over ?

Does the title remind you of the childhood riddle, " what is black and white and read ( red ) all over". As children we triumphantly said " newspapers" to a playmate not knowing the answer. In recent years an apt question, among others, might be what is "black and yellow and bled all over " What is bled is the precious reputation or hard earned career of anyone victimized by the innuendo and sensationalism of today's version of yellow journalism.

The term dates back to the last decade of the 19th century referring to the no holds barred if not vicious war between William Randolph Hearst ( New York Journal ) and Joseph Pulitzer ( New York World). After yellowing the San Francisco Examiner,Hearst moved to New York, purchased the Journal and raided the World staff including Richard Outcault the cartoonist for the comic strip "the yellow kid". Pulitzer countered with a comic strip of the same name and competed witrh Hearst for the most outrageous coverage of sensational stories. Indeed, both newspapers practiced jingoism to such an extreme that historians credit them with inciting the Spanish-American war of 1898 and branded their journalistic practices as yellow journalism.

This is not to say that the 1890's was preceded by an era of highly professional journalism. On the contrary, it was the practice since the beginning of the republic, spreading like an infectious disease from the big city papers to all others in varying degrees. Notable exceptions are the Wall St. Journal and the Christian Science Monitor. For a century the old gray lady, the New York Times, lived up to its motto " only the news thats fit to print" . In recent years the Times has been jolted by false and contrived reporting, a consistent bias against conservatism in general and George W. Bush in particular. The Times coverage of the Abu Graib prison story is illustrative of their succumbing to the tide of yellow journalism now imbedded in both the print and electronic media.

Sadly, since the Viet Nam war the print and electronic media have added a new dimension to yellow journalism. They have chosen sides in the political debate of our country, openly and defiantly, slanting news reports against anything and anyone conservative; in the meanwhile maintaining
total silence on the miscues of all non-conservatives. They themselves are the single biggest contributor to the rise of the alternative media to an extent that threatens their very survival.
Significantly, traditional media practitioners seem puzzled as to why they are losing their previously unchallenged influence on public opinion. So far there is little if any indication that traditional media can reform itself. Perhaps they are similar to the least productive, least effective persons in a partcular work force who are shocked when they are fired.

The founding fathers included freedom of the press as a first amendment prohibition against government control of information and inquiry. The implicit assumption was an equivalent level of obligation to properly discharge their resposibility to serve the public trust. Unfortunately, that has been a problem from day one, only getting worse as the years, decades and centuries have marched on. A particular public poll seems tlo be the upper limit on their ability to dig up and provide truthful, accurate information to the public on a specific subject. They demand all kinds of special treatment under the guise of the public's right to know. Their behavior is now impeding justice because some people are unwilling to testify in court given the mudraking they must endure. Recently a florida schoolteacher went scott free after admitedly seducing a 14 year old boy because the parents and the boy feared the fallout from the media coverage. It is seriously sad that one of the guarantors of liberty the founding fathers envisioned has evolved in to a guarantor of the erosion of liberty and freedom.

smoking ban hyper hypocrisy

Smoking Ban Hyper Hypocrisy
Colorado becomes the 12th state to enact a state wide smoking ban, a dubious distinction at best, an uncostitutional violation of property rights at worst, legislative hyper hypocracy in either case. Worst still a Republican governor reportedly eager to sign the smoking ban into law. The large tax revenue from casinos was obviously protected but the prospect of zero income revenue for small neighborhood bars and the loss of associated jobs was acceptable.
The stated justifications such as employee health fall totally flat since all were matters of personal choice to begin with, particularly when weighed against property rights. The arrogance of statements like " a smokers rights end at the nose of a non-smoker" are offensive. The only act even more offensive was that of the American Cancer Society ,proud ot their participation - along with their Democrat and Republican compatriots in the legislature- in this mega intrusion in the lives of so many.
Any glee on the part of non-smokers will be a fond memory when their turn in the barrel comes up : fatty foods, junk foods, high cholesterol foods, suv's, guns. You name it.
Bar owners and patrons should combine their money and efforts in massive resistance, by virtue of court challenges and raising their voices until they are heard ending in a crescendo of bipartisan votes against all office seekers who supported ths ban or will not pledge support for rwpeal of the ban.

Second thoughts about the DPW debacle

Within minutes of the statement by Dubai -that they intended to sell their port terminal acquisitions to an American company- caused the latent pot of recriminations and questions to boil over. Will Dubai retaliate by restricting or blocking our use of their naval and air facilities? Will it adversely affect our developing relationship with friendly mid-east nations? Perhaps nothing sums it up better than the worn but in this case accurate " a day late and a dollar short ".
Polls showed the American people irate with the sale and why not? What they heard was that the operation and security of six American ports would be run by Dubai that previously had recognized the Taliban among other nefarious acts. Who can blame the people for reacting negatively to that message ? However, we can clearly blame both parties in congress: the Democrats trying to burnish their weak image on the war in terrorism, The Republicans for deserting the president but more importantly for abdicating their leadership to reconcile the critical issues of port security and building support for the war on terror by other nations . Does the latter have a familar ring? Is that not what the Democrats have advocated for years?

Who will the fingers of blame be pointed at if the foreign private sector thinks twice about investing in the U.S. or foreign governments sell off the treasury bonds they currently hold? The economic impact of these actions would be severe. We probably will squeak by because they need our military support. The entire matter could have been resolved by congress and the administration jointly setting the requirements needed to meet all security concerns. Perhaps Dubai would have settled for a carefree monthly check for the profits. We will never know.

some conservatives slow advance by looking back

Dr. Bill Bennett has stated that the American people are confused regarding the Dubai Port World proposed purchase of certain terminals at six U.S. seaports. With all due respect to Dr. Bennett- with a record of uncanny accuracy in calling the mood of the people- misses the call on this issue. The people are angry and growing angrier. Initially, the anger was due to the perennially inaccurate descriptions of the media reporting UAE takeover of security and operation at the six seaports in their entirety. These reports created a mental picture in American's collective minds of men in Arab garb sneaking in wmd's of all sorts at will at these six ports. Very few American's could endure that vision- especially since president Bush seemingly was going counter to his own policy.

This first wave of anger moderated over the next few days as people began to look at the map of the UAE sitting directly across the strategic Straight of Hormuz from Iran, the air base and naval facility in Dubai and the role they would play should push come to shove over Iran's
nuclear threat. The second wave of anger is building as the people see the Democrats, along with their compatriots in the media, making the absurd assertion that the democrats had seized the national security issue from the Republicans and the Republicans, in turn, deserting their president, running for the tall grass, with vows to resist the president at all costs. When you spice that mix with their growing realization that most port operations are largely run by foreign companiies , how inadequate port security is in total and until recently all the effort expended to be sure grandma was not carrying box cutters on board commercial aircraft. We should be thankful that American's anger has not yet erupted given the underlying current of inadequate border security.

Rush Limbaugh seems to be the only conservative talk show host to see the president's prioity need to not endanger to any degree the vital necessity of maintaining our use of the air and naval facilities in Dubai. At the same time my other stalwart hosts are driving with their eyes focused on the rear view mirror . It pains me to hear Bill Bennett, Laura Ingraham, Shawn Hannity, Hugh Hewitt and others cast their opposition in concrete with little effort to provide leadership in influencing a solution that will satisfy all the port security qualms while at the same time maintaing the super vital facilities in Dubai should we need them.

When president Bush announced his " you are either with us or against us policy " after 9/11 I am more than certain he did not intend that any given government was eternally stuck with the status they happened to be in back then . On the contrary president Bush would be due severe criticism for not pursuing a policy of winning over mid-east countries to our side of the war on terror.

I think it is time for conservative talk show hosts to realize that they- like it or not- are the leaders of the alternative media movement with great influence on what we the people hear and act on. You no longer are just an entertaining narrow commercial interest. When you drive with your focus on the rear view mirror , the wreck you most probably have could be a national wreck with severe long lasting consequences.

It is not to late to lead by talking about all american management of the ports with a severe penalty wall for communicating security arrangements to foreign governments or encouraging a U.S. company to buy the port terminals in question from DPW . I am sure I have not exhausted the available options and am confident there are many more options . It just takes looking forward and a little common sense.

Superiority Of A National Retail Sales Tax

Several newspapers across our nation have reacted to president Bush's proposal for major tax reform with editorials dismissing the national sales tax out of hand as a viable alternative to the current federal income tax code. This, as stated, because of its adverse impact on the poor. All national sales tax legislation proposed since the early 1990’s have been progressive by virtue of a simple provision : a rebate would be applied to all family units ranging from a single individual to a family of any size. The rebate amount would adjust to family size and equal the sales tax liability of family units with income at the official poverty level. Thus this provision would reduce the effective sales tax rate to zero for poverty level families while having an insignificant effect on the highest income family units. For example, one previous proposal with a nominal sales tax rate of 17% would indicate an effective sales tax rate of 16.99% on those highest income family units. Family units between those two extremes would pay an effective sales tax rate in proportion to what the fixed rebate amount is relative to their income.Certainly it is important to maintain progressivity in any federal tax code, however, a federal tax code that offers the maximun opportunity for poverty level families to move up the economic ladder is equally if not more important. Many studies reported in the 90’s showed the economic benefits that derive from a national sales tax: higher incomes, more better paying jobs, higher returns on investments, higher government revenues to mention a brief few . The best, most comprehensive study of the current federal income tax code compared to proposals for a flat federal income or a national sales tax was published by Dale Jorganson. Dean of the economics dept. at Harvard University in 2001. Jorganson concludes that a progressive National Sales Tax, collected on personal expenditures at the retail level would generate economic gains exceeding those from a flat tax by more than 50%! That is 3.32 trillion $ for the sales tax compared to 2.06 trillion $ for a flat income tax.( figures are for 1997 ) The comparisons are based on equal progressivity in both proposed codes and neutral with respect to federal expenditures.One need not contemplate too long before realizing the immense benefits to all deriving from replacing any form of income tax- progressive or flat- with a national retail sales tax.