Some interesting developments

The Washington Post revealed the identity of the "anonymous source" famously associated with the Nixon Watergate Scandal. Here he is:



W. Mark Felt


As you will recall, Gil recently wrote that "Deep Throat" was dramatically important to the breaking of the scandal. A former Washington Post editor has stated dramatically otherwise.

In other news, no liberal has shown me a partisan Republican Senate filibuster (40 Republicans voting against cloture) that blocked a judicial nominee from either the Supreme Court or the appellate courts.

I again challenge them to present this "precedent" (roll call votes only please) to judicial nominee Miguel Estrada being blocked in 2003.

Arlen Specter on embryotic stem cells

July 8, 2001
Face the Nation, CBS News

"I believe today in the Congress, there are overwhelming majorities in favor of, Gloria, not only of stem cell research once the stem cells have been extracted but also in federal funding to extract the stem cells where you don't have private companies doing it, where you have pro--prohibition against cloning. I certainly would never agree to cloning. I certainly would never agree to destroying a stem cell if there was any chance at all, any chance at all, that that embryo would turn into a--a human being. I think there are more than 70 votes today in the Senate. And there's a groundswell in America because so many people have personal experience with the availability of these stem cells to save the lives of their loved ones."

---

June 21, 2001
The Edge with Paula Zahn, Fox News

"Private companies are creating embryos specifically for stem cells, and I think that's a very bad idea. The legislation which I have proposed with many co-sponsors would put some federal regulation on that, would prevent that, would stop the risk of cloning and would use only the embryos which are already in existence. I'm not saying we ought to create embryos for scientific purposes, which gets on the path of cloning."

SENATOR SPECTER COMMENTS ON PRESIDENT'S DECISION REGARDING STEM CELL RESEARCH

When the President acknowledges that some embryos will not survive long storage and some will be thrown away, it is my judgement that at least stem cells should be extracted from those embryos without crossing the President's ethical line.

Week 6

Misleading on Santorum again (Smart Remark)

Once again, Gil takes a futile shot at Rick Santorum. Is this guy obsessed or what?

OK, to warm yourself up for Gil's column this week, I suggest first reading the remarks of President Bush on Stem Cell Research in 2001.

Also, you might want to read the more recent press release by Santorum on this issue.

Gil gives us this Santorum quote: “Government should encourage lifesaving research, but should focus on science that both works and is ethical,” said Santorum, thereby insinuating, dishonestly, that stem cell research does not work. We can’t know until it’s conducted.

That's quite a phony statement according to what you can see in Santorum's press release.

I am pleased to see the House pass the Stem Cell Therapeutic Research Act of 2005, which will make genetically matched cord blood stem cells more available to patients who need them. Cord blood stem cells are one example of an ethical and viable means to treat patients and cure disease. At the very least, this type of research should receive federal funding before we spend taxpayer dollars to destroy human embryos.

What really irks Gil is that government funding won't go to embryotic stem cell research. However, according to President Bush's statement,

As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist. They were created from embryos that have already been destroyed, and they have the ability to regenerate themselves indefinitely, creating ongoing opportunities for research. I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines, where the life and death decision has already been made.

Leading scientists tell me research on these 60 lines has great promise that could lead to breakthrough therapies and cures. This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research without crossing a fundamental moral line, by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life. <>I also believe that great scientific progress can be made through aggressive federal funding of research on umbilical cord placenta, adult and animal stem cells which do not involve the same moral dilemma. This year, your government will spend $250 million on this important research.

To hear Gil tell it, these "spare embryos" are vital to successful stem cell research. However, some of us are giving more careful consideration to the issue. Not giving federal funding to embryotic stem cell research does not kill the research. It can still be privately funded. People who find ethical issue with the practice can then choose not to contribute. To force them against their religious and ethical principles should not be the American way.

I find it ironic that Gil states: So this is where the “culture of life,” so rigidly defined, may actually lead to a perceptible, measurable national decline.

I agree that there could be a national decline. But the national decline would be in ethics in science, conducted by "the culture of death", once again attempting to force their ethical and moral points of view (that are in the minority) on the rest of us.

When will "Democrats" remember that democracy is supposed to be about majority rule?

Senate never filibustered Paez, in fact, they rejected the motion to indefinately postpone Paez.

Talkback Lancaster Online is an interesting place, I've got to tell you. Lee41 on there originally posed the question "Which party was the first to filibuster a judicial nominee?". Of course, we were discussing this in the context of the Senate.

He didn't care for my answer to much: Democrats against Miguel Estrada in 2003.

First, he jumped back to a 1968 "filibuster" of Abe Fortas. But the problem was that Democrats and Republicans "filibustered" him. And although Republicans might have led this "filibuster" (led by former Democrat Strom Thurmond, who changed parties in 1964), the "filibuster" would not have happened without Democrat support.

Abe Fortas was already an associate justice of the Supreme Court since 1965. This filibuster did not block Fortas from being on the court, but from becoming Chief Justice. Also, you will notice that I keep putting quotations around "filibuster". That's because it was a failed cloture, which may or may not be a filibuster. This is also true if you examine this document from the Senate website called Filibuster and Cloture in the Senate (pdf) or if you visit Harry Reid and People for the American Way Caught Misrepresenting CRS Report on Past Judicial Filibusters.

Despite these explanations, Lee41 insisted that Paez was filibustered by a partisan Senate filibuster. When I provided Lee41 this link from Senator Trent Lott's website showing him that the March 8, 2000 vote for cloture for Paez was to BRING and up or down vote (not block it), I think his head exploded.

I also explained that Paez was blocked (as described in the previous link) by Sessions and Smith with a tactic called "the hold", which is not considered a filibuster, but rather the prospect of a filibuster. I cited this article from the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, which states that Paez was "on hold".

But rather than resort to a filibuster, the blocking tactic that has been employed by Senate Democrats against a handful of President Bush’s nominees, Sessions turned to a more secretive maneuver known as a "hold" that allows just one senator to stall a nomination. -quote

I followed by another statement from the Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate (pdf) .

In that document, it has a section titled "The Prospect of a Filibuster". Underneath is a subtitle called "Hold".

The first sentence states "However much effect filibusters have on the operations of the Senate, perhaps a more pervasive effect is attributable to filibusters that have not taken place—at least not yet."

Lee41 just wasn't happy with that. He insisted, still, there was a filibuster on Paez on March 9, 2000.

However, I pointed out in his own link of this "filibuster" that the vote result was "rejected motion to indefinitely postpone [Paez]".

In other words, they rejected filibustering Paez after the cloture vote on March 8, 2000. On March 9, 2000, Paez was confirmed by the Senate without any extended debate past the Senate Rules on cloture (30 hours permitted).

Democrats still hold the precedent for the first party to partisanly filibuster a judicial nominee, Miguel Estrada in 2003.

Republicans have never used it in a partisan fashion.

And with the exception of the bipartisan 1968 filibuster of Abe Fortas's nomination to be Chief Justice of the United States, the Senate has never blocked by filibuster a judicial nominee to any court.

Source: http://rpc.senate.gov/releases/2003/jd021003.htm

Democrats are wrong on the filibuster

Alright, this doesn't have much to do with Gil, but it's pretty much something floating around the Democrat party that's getting on my nerves.

Simply put, many liberal Democrats simply do not understand the filibuster. Many of them are on boards saying "Republicans lied" about this Senate precedent of blocking a judicial nominee with a partisan Senate filibuster. Many of them point to this case with Richard Paez. However, you can see here that this vote "On the Cloture Motion (Cloture Motion RE: Nom. of Richard Paez to be U.S. Circuit Judge ) succeeded on March 8, 2000, he was confirmed by the Senate March 9, 2000. A successful cloture vote CANNOT be a filibuster.

Many also get confused because judicial nominees were blocked by Senate Committees (which, by the way, is called the blue slip policy and was established by Democrats Kennedy and Biden). What does this have to do with a precedent on a vote that reached the Senate floor? Absolutely NOTHING! Paez is not a precedent for this scenario!

Democrats have been using the partisan senate filibuster to block judicial nominees starting with Miguel Estrada. I've been asking around from Democrats for a Senate Republican filibuster used to block judicial nominees on the Senate floor. So far, no dice.

Hmmmm... who lied?

Part of the problem may be that Democrats simply do not understand the filibuster and cloture. Here is a good course in both straight from the U.S. Senate. In it, they explain that a vote against cloture does not necessarily mean that there is a vote in favor of a filibuster. For some more good links on this topic, visit the Original Smart Retorts Online Archive, linked on the side.

Welcome to Smart Retorts!

The mission statement of this BLOG is to correct or answer any or all information posted in Smart Remarks, written by Gil Smart. You can visit his website at http://smartremarks.blogspot.com. I have sat by idly for long enough reading inaccurate, misleading, and biased reports in the Sunday paper not titled "Perspective" -- but rather "Lancaster".

A retort is a quick reply to a question or remark (especially a witty or critical one).

Currently, as of the grand opening of the Smart Retorts, there are about five "official" ones, and one "pretort" ranging on issues from Rick Santorum to the failed Lancaster county library tax. You can view those original ones at the Original Smart Retorts Online Archive linked to the right. Please note that a link cannot always be provided to Gil's column that appears in the Lancaster section of the Lancaster Sunday newspaper. Gil's weblog appears to be on "hiatus" as well.

Enjoy the site and I look forward to bringing weekly retorts in response to Gil's column.

Week 5

Smart Retort

Week 5

Welcome to this week's Smart Retorts.

This one is about the Newsweek Koran desecration story fiasco.

Initially, this week's column made me immediately think back on another recent one, "It's not about the balance or the bias, it's all about the Benjamins", where Gil appeared to be defending bias in news stories.

(psst. Look where it's gotten some of your reporter colleagues on this one, Gil.)

In this week's column, Gil states "The Newsweek scandal, for all its ferocity, has largely glossed over that no one is really denying the incident described took place."

Oh really?

Must have missed what Tommy Franks had to say, which you can read here:

They cannot confirm yet that there was ever the case of the toilet incident, except for one case -- a log entry which they still have to confirm -- where a detainee was reported by a guard to be ripping pages out of a Koran and putting [them] in the toilet to stop it up as a protest. -- Tommy Franks

Perhaps Gil missed that a military spokesman, "dismissed the claims as unbelievable" right in NEWSWEEK!!!!!?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7857407/site/newsweek/page/2/

A U.S. military spokesman, Army Col. Brad Blackner, dismissed the claims as unbelievable. "If you read the Al Qaeda training manual, they are trained to make allegations against the infidels," he said.

The U.S. had a memo on handling the Koran.

More than two years ago, the Pentagon issued detailed rules for handling the Koran at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, requiring U.S. personnel to ensure that the holy book is not placed in "offensive areas such as the floor, near the toilet or sink, near the feet, or dirty/wet areas." The three-page memorandum, dated Jan. 19, 2003, says that only Muslim chaplains and Muslim interpreters can handle the holy book, and only after putting on clean gloves in full view of detainees.

OK, we're off to a good start this week!

Let's examine this one about the Nixon Watergate scandal, which reads like a plagiarized sentence off a moonbat's liberal website:

"Without Deep Throat, the story never breaks wide open in the manner it did. The dirty tricks and subsequent cover-up goes unreported."

It's hard to figure how the story would have never broken when the initial burglary arrest was made on June 17, 1972. Right off the bat, one of the burglars claimed to work for the CIA apparently before the Washington Post even broke the story.

It's hard to believe that Deep Throat was any type of smoking gun, or essential party in the Watergate scandal that would have left things unreported.

Just ask the former city editor of the Washington Post, Barry Sussman. It appears that Deep Throat was not all that essential to the Washington Post reporting on the Watergate Scandal.

Deep Throat barely figured in the Post's Watergate coverage. He was nice to have around, but that's about it.

Gil uses the phrase "telling the truth" several times in his article.

Is it ironic that his own biased column and the retracted Newsweek story do little to accomplish that objective?

Week 4

Week 4

(In response to this.)

Here is a special update on the library tax Gil discussed that failed in the May 17 referendum.

Election Results 2005

Looks like Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell's 50% cut on state funding of public libraries didn't go over so well?

Week 3

Week 3

Welcome to this week's Smart Retorts.

This week, Gil concedes that conservatism is "succeeding in part" because "it has consistently cast itself in the role of victim".

Gil goes on to describe this "demonization". According to Gil, we "get the consistent demonization of 'evil' judges, 'un-American' homosexuals and vile liberals."

Not sure whom Gil is quoting here.

But wasn't it Teresa Heinz Kerry who was quoted as saying, "We need to turn back some of the creeping, un-Pennsylvanian and sometimes un-American traits that are coming into some of our politics."?

When later asked by Colin McNickle, editorial page editor for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, what she meant by the term "un-American", Heinz Kerry made the now infamous quote "Shove it".

Then Gil rants against Dr. Dobson, quoting an April newsletter from Focus on the Family out of context.

The first quote is this:

In it, Dobson calls U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy the most dangerous man in America. However, you can see the context here.

While we can debate the wisdom of executing minors, (who, by the way, would have been at least 30 or 40 years old by the time their sentences were carried out,) the more important issue is how the law came to be struck down. It was not debated or decided by the American people or their representatives, where such issues should be deliberated and determined. It was nullified by judicial decree. The Oligarchy did it for us.

Even those who are opposed to the idea of capital punishment for minors should be gravely concerned about the criteria by which the Supreme Court arrived at its decision. In writing for the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy, whom I consider to be the most dangerous man in America, explained his rationale for the ruling, boldly claiming, "It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international public opinion against the juvenile death penalty." 29 This justification was written by a man who regularly ignores the weight of American public opinion in forcing his post-modern nonsense on our culture. Kennedy further promised that the Supreme Court of the United States would continue to look to "the laws of [selected] other countries and to international authorities" in re-interpreting the Constitution.30

In his second quote of Dobson, Gil says:

Terri Schiavo was condemned to death by an immoral Florida court judge [Judge George Greer].

What else do you call this?

As for evil judges, haven't Democrats been obstructing some "evil judges" of their own in recent news? Forgot that whole filibustering thing in the Democratic Senate already?

Gil then references an incident in a North Carolina Baptist church where 9 members were allegedly expelled if they would not support Bush. It appears Gil's source for his information is this. You can tell because its nearly a direct quote from the site (which source is identified as the democraticunderground.com). He even uses a term from that article in his, "Exhibit A". For those of you who know, the Democratic Underground BLOG is not a very good source for facts and the story appears weak.

There were only nine Democrats in the whole church? Think about this. Nine! This is a sign that Democrats are persecuted across the country?

Try reading Persecution by David Limbaugh, once.

In fact, there is a lot of dispute (from what I've read) over the reasoning for kicking out the nine. Varying stories say that the pastor asked everyone to leave that did not agree with his position on homosexuality and abortion. At most, the church could lose its tax exempt status according to some of the information I've read, although I don't believe that that has happened at this point.

What does Dr. Dobson's quote about a Republican judge (George Greer) or the news story about Chan Chandler, a pastor of East Waynesville in North Carolina, have to do with demonizing liberals in Pennsylvania or in America as a whole?

And if this quote from Democrat Harry Reid isn't demonizing, I don't know what is.

"The man's father is a wonderful human being," Reid said in response to a question about President Bush's policies. "I think this guy is a loser.

After the statement was released, Reid phoned the Review-Journal to acknowledge he thought he crossed the line.

Republican National Communications Director Brian Jones issued a statement calling the senator's comments "a sad development but not surprising from the leader of a party devoid of optimism, ideas or solutions to the issues people care about most."

Source

Gil, I think we have some more pressing issues to deal with, like Social Security?

Thanks for reading this week's Smart Retorts.

Week 2

Smart Retort

Week 2

(In response to this, with an Accuweather follow-up.)

Well, here we go again. Nothing like beating a dead horse, right Gil? The other week, Santorum was in league with the devil (ie. Wal-mart, originally spelled with a tilde or asteriks, I've been told). This week, it's AccuWeather!

For starters, Gil's bash on Santorum (this week) appears to be a response to this press release from Santorum titled "Santorum Proposes to Modernize National Weather Service to Better Serve Public" from April 14, 2005.

Here is the legislation called the National Weather Services Duties Act of 2005 (Introduced in Senate) S 786 IS1S.

Well, OK. Maybe I am giving Gil too much credit. He probably only read these links:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/4/22/112939/284

or one of the other various (and numerous) "moonbat" BLOGS on the Internet.

Because, obviously, if you read the Santorum Press Release or the Accuweather Mission Statement, or the actual Bill -- you wouldn't be dumb enough to write an article such as this (unless you only read the BLOGS or think you're Smart enough?).

Barry Myers, Accuweather's executive vice president, said if the bill were to pass, the public would likely notice little difference, and it could in fact benefit.

"Encouraging that activity in the private sector is a much better way" to encourage innovation "than having the government try to do it," Myers said (Source:Santorum's bill would change National Weather Service offerings). (Santorum's bill puts weather in the hands of the private sector.)

"Ninety-five percent of all the forecasts that make their way to the public come from the private sector, not the government," said Barry Myers, AccuWeather's executive vice president.

Santorum's bill would restore a noncompetition and nonduplication policy the weather service adopted in 1991 and rescinded in December [2004]. (Source:Santorum's bill could rain on National Weather Service)


Under the proposed legislation, the National Weather Service would be allowed to offer particular types of services only if the private sector does not offer them � a provision similar to rules the agency was guided by for 14 years until last year.

When the rule changed, the weather service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration expanded into areas already served by the commercial weather industry, according to Santorum's office.

The bill would protect the 14 private weather service companies in Pennsylvania � including AccuWeather in State College, Pa., which employs 340 people, Santorum spokeswoman Chrissy Shott said. AccuWeather provides weather data to a variety of outlets � including media organizations such as The Associated Press.

"This is about job retention in Pennsylvania," Shott said. Severe weather information would still be issued by the [National] weather service, she said.


Hmmm, some interesting info Gil neglected to tell us in his editorial...er, article?

It makes one wonder; did he check any of the facts to this "story"?

Week 1

Week 1
Part 1

(In response to this.)

Welcome to Smart Retort! This week, Gil states that media bias is economically smart! Did you mean, these past several articles by Gil haven't been "objective"? (There is a shocker!)

Let's start off with some fresh, illustrative hypocrisy.

In this week's obsessive rant, Gil states:

And I�m not going to waste ink on Ms. Coulter herself, except to note that were I to invoke violence against my political opposites the way she has, conservatives would be apoplectic. Well, more apoplectic than usual.

After that he goes on to "waste ink" on the name Coulter about 3 of 4 more times, once taking a jab at her as "Miss April" for Time magazine. And or course, slamming Time magazine itself as "conservative". (gasp!)

Don't forget, either, that (according to this article) Time was a conservative magazine nearly half a decade ago, so that's why they selected her. (Another fine example of liberals living in the past). Even though "The media landscape has changed immensely since then, of course."

Here is the shocker: "But a lot of media companies have come to realize that bias, sometimes, can do wonders for the balance sheet."

Sometimes? How about EVERY FREAKIN' COLUMN you write? What did they "realize" about that? Manic-obsession?

It�s Economics 101, really. And it�s an area where conservatives have liberals absolutely outmaneuvered. Because liberals, you know, consider themselves too smart to fall for this sort of consumerist nonsense. It�s the sort of self-defeating attitude that has led to the current state of affairs.

Once again, liberals have decided to characterize themselves as smarter than conservatives? This has been going on routinely for the past several months in the form of "liberal" colleges are more prestigous and prevalent than "conservative" colleges (excluding Christian schools, of course!). Somehow, these pompous, condescending liberals (ie. elitists) have evolved to intellectually surpass their conservative rivals? (Somehow, I doubt it.) What, did their heads become enlarged? (Perhaps.)

Week 1
Part 2


But some on this side of the fence are waking up to the reality that voting with your wallet may be the only way to ensure your interests are represented. Liberal Air America radio has made some headway, particularly in major markets.

Indeed. They have made "some" headway. Here is an interesting article titled:

Why the Liberals Can't Keep Air America From Spiraling In

By Brian C. Anderson

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commen...0,7147223.story

EXCERPT:
"Wait a second, you say, didn't I read that Air America has expanded to more than 50 markets? That's true, but let's put things in perspective: Conservative pundit and former Reagan official William J. Bennett's morning talk show, launched at the same time as Air America, reaches nearly 124 markets, including 18 of the top 20, joining the growing ranks of successful right-of-center talk programs (Limbaugh is still the ratings leader, drawing more than 15 million listeners a week).

And look at Air America's ratings: They're pitifully weak, even in places where you would think they'd be strong. WLIB, its flagship in New York City, has sunk to 24th in the metro area Arbitron ratings — worse than the all-Caribbean format it replaced, notes the Radio Blogger. In the liberal meccas of San Francisco and Los Angeles, Air America is doing lousier still. "

Actually, there are many that say Air America is a failed radio broadcast.

And Fox News is now successful enough that it can be programmed against; if officials at struggling CNN were smart, which they’ve consistently proven themselves not to be, they would position the network as the anti-Fox.

Did Gil just label CNN officials as "consistently proven to not be Smart"? CNN has proven itself to me to have a reasonable amount of journalistic objectivity. I guess in this sense, they are not that Smart.

But we forget that this idea of journalistic objectivity is a relatively new construct; Pulitzer and Hearst were known not for balance but for yellow journalism; the overt bias of Luce’s Time was, for a long time, the norm.

And I guess 1830 is relatively new? I guess since the invention of the PRINTING PRESS is "relatively new"? (Sure, if you have the lifespan of blood-sucking vampire!)

http://www.historycooperative.org/cgi-bin/...87.1/br_78.html

EXCERPT:

Detachment and nonpartisanship begin with the penny press, especially James Gordon Bennett's New York Herald, the most usual suspect of all. Mindich offers new wrinkles, attributing detachment not to market forces, but to a reaction against the violence of the 1830s, and identifying a spectrum of positions within nonpartisanism—Bennett's "centrist" position, William Lloyd Garrison's "antipartisan" stance, and Frederick Douglass's "activist" nonpartisanism. But one might look farther back for other genealogies. Detachment has a precursor in the ideology of the "open press" associated with colonial printers, for instance, and nonpartisanism has a rich history in the various reactions against 1820s partisanism among anti-Masons and workies.

In summary, this week's column has some decent points, but it sort of missed the mark.

It's not "bias" that sells. It's controversy. Foxnews may contain some "bias", but its not entirely one-sided bias. Every show on there I can think of has a liberal commentator or guest (think Susan Estrich, Al Sharpton, Alan Colmes, Dick Morris, Jeanene Garafalo, etc...)

To prove that controversy sells, simply think of Jerry Springer. Or Howard Stern. It's the two sides clashing that peaks interests in viewership (or readership).

It's not merely one-sided political bias that interests people. It's debate. It's controversy. All on-sided bias accomplishes is a concern over journalistic objectivity - something Gil Smart may very well be missing?