June 9, 2005 by s.z.

Wingnuttiest Comment o' the Day One of the many comments left by lady-like blogger Sondra K. in response to a Sadly,No! post refuting her claim that Sadly! posted about her previously in order to try to hijack some of her blog's traffic: Stop stalking my blog. (I'd give you a link to Sondra's blog, but I don't want to be arrested for blog stalking.) 7:08:14 AM

More Stossel Because he's the tool that keeps on giving. First, here's a nice local story from the Joplin Globe: Newsman extols free market at graduation ceremony John Stossel flew into Joplin on Sunday to tell this year's Thomas Jefferson Independent Day School graduates how it took him 20 years "to figure out that most of what I thought was wrong." The ABC News correspondent and co-anchorman of that network's "20/20" newsmagazine show was the guest speaker at the Thomas Jefferson class of 2005 commencement ceremony. Since Thomas Jefferson is a private school which seems to serve only rich white kids (look at the photos), and since the graduating class consisted of only 15 or so students, I wonder why John decided to impart his wisdom to this particular institution.  (I have to imagine that money changed hands.)   During an interview at the Joplin Regional Airport before the graduation event, Stossel said he was not completely certain what all he might tell this year's high-school seniors, but he said it would live up to his reputation for challenging widely held beliefs and opinions. You know what would have been a great message (and would have challenged widely held beliefs and opinions)?  That you need to send your kids to an expensive private school to prepare them for success in life. In particular, he said, he intended to debunk the widespread notion that market capitalism and greed are synonymous. He said that's a thought instilled in him by his own education that he now realizes is wrong. "I finally figured out how greedy capitalists actually help people," Stossel said. He used a Globe reporter's pen as an example of what he meant. "Could you make that?" he asked. "Could I make that? How many people does it take to make that pen? I could try all my life, and I would not be able to make that pen." But economic freedom and a market economy make such products possible and accessible to everyone, Stossel said. Yes, without greedy capitalists, you'd have to write with your finger, using your own blood for ink.  The fact that John can't make pens proves this. Unfortunately, Stossel said, as this year's high-school seniors enter the university system, they will be subjected to "a vilification" of market capitalism that equates economic opportunity and enterprise with greed. Oh, I bet these kids have already had the benefits of capitalism drummed into their blonde, privileged heads so well that no university system is going to persuade them that exploiting workers, despoiling the environment, and buying politicians in order to keep taxes low aren't good things.  He said his core message to those students would be that "they should go forth unafraid and embrace their opportunities." "Kids, be proud of being the pampered spawn of greedy, capitalist families, for, as  Republican Jesus said, you shall inherit the Earth, thanks to the American system of free enterprise!"  He said Americans have become increasingly less informed and more apathetic about such things as government and politics, and the media are sometimes guilty of "pandering to the masses'' by addressing relatively mundane topics. Nonetheless, he said, consumer reporting has always been important. Americans' political apathy may actually be a good thing, a reflection of a country essentially at peace, he said. "What affected your life more?" Stossel asked rhetorically. "Politics or the invention of the computer chip or the birth-control pill and the women's movement?" For me, it was pens.  Thank heavens that greedy capitalists made them possible!  Now, let's discuss Stossel's most recent "20/20" investigation, "Animal Rescuers or Thieves?"  I didn't see it, but I read Stossel's report on it at the Stossel site at ABC News.  The thesis seems to be that some SPCA groups are "resucing" expensive animals that are being well cared for by loving owners just so that the groups can sell them to make money, which they use to pay themselves big salaries.  I guess this is a story that you need to see in order to judge fairly, but just from reading the story you get the idea that these animals weren't receiving adequate care (phrases like "He said the horses had lost weight simply because they were sick and he was overwhelmed." "some of them were thin, she said, because they were nursing large litters of puppies," "her vet wrote, while 'housing and sanitation needed improvement' and suggested a cutback in the number of animals," "while there was some neglect because the owner had been away for four days," and "Most of the dogs were adopted, a few were put to sleep," indicate that although the owners may be whining to Stossel that there was no reason for their animals to be taken, that there was cause for the SPCA's concern). For the exciting undercover investigation part of the segment, Stossel, a producer, and a cameraman (who is secretly a vet!) went along with an SPCA official on a raid.  (The official didn't know that "20/20" was investigating him, not the irresponsible dog breeder.)  Early one morning last September, "20/20" accompanied Garcia as he went with a police officer to a Justice of the Peace to get the warrant needed to raid a dog kennel. He claimed the owner didn't provide adequate food, water and shelter, and showed photos of what he said were filthy kennels. After a brief informal hearing, Garcia got permission to raid, which meant he and an armed police officer could go to the kennel without any warning. Apparently "20/20" didn't show the photos which convinced the judge to allow the raid, but the segment implies that Garcia rigged the evidence. After raiding her kennel, Garcia took the dogs to the SPCA where the workers cited problems like fleas and mange. Not that the technicians are experts. In fact, our vet was the only veterinarian in sight. "These pets were not abused. They were not in poor health. None of them were in life-threatening conditions," said TeSlaa. Well, they did have fleas and mange, which aren't good.  And the "20/20" vet, TeSlaa, reportedly didn't examine the animals, seeing them only in the cages as they were being confiscated. And apparently the animals were being kept in small wire cages which hadn't been cleaned during at least the four days the owner was gone.  Stossel made it sound like any problems that existed were only because the breeder took an unprecedented, brief, out of town visit, and that the SPCA just wanted to confiscate her dogs because they were valuable -- but since there were reportedly complaints going back a year on this breeder, and because the SPCA had to euthanize some of the animals, this seems unlikely. When I told Garcia that our vet didn't think the animals should have been taken, he said, "The judge did." But the judge permitted the raid because of the data Garcia brought to them. I suggested that he "spins" the evidence. "No, I don't spin them," said Garcia. "The judge looks at the facts. Looks at the probable cause, and the judge makes the decision." I asked him about the claim that he steals people's animals. "No, I'm not stealing no one's animals," said Garcia. He said he dismisses most complaints without any confiscation. Garcia said, "It's about the welfare of an animal." Tell that to the 50 people we talked to who lost animals to Garcia and other SPCAs. And if you talk to 50 inmates in prison, you'll find out that most (if not all) of them are innocent victims of the criminal justice system. Anyway, it's possible that this particular branch of the SPCA actually is too eager to take animals (property) away from the legal owners.  And maybe some owners would have cleaned up their act if given another chance.  But if the cases "20/20" presented are the best evidence they have that the SPCA is stealing animals in order to make money, I think this segment was an example of really crappy reporting. And some of the posters at the 20/20 message forum are making more serious charges: some are saying that this piece was instigated by "puppy mill" breeders who contacted the segment producer and fed her this whole song and dance about how their rights are being violated, and that Stossel ignored evidence which didn't fit his thesis that the SPCA was up to no good.  And other posters are saying that these first posters are "Animal Rights Terrorists" who just want to shut down breeders ("Thank you 20/20 for doing a wonderful investigative report on the abuses of our individual rights").  There are several pages worth of comments on this story, so apparently some people are passionate about the issues it raised.  So I guess Stossel did accomplish his mission of delivering a story that challenges widely-held beliefs and opinions, even if the beliefs and opinions didn't deserve challenging. 6:08:00 AM

comment [] trackback []

Reject Conventional Bourgeois Marriage at Your Own Peril Ann Coulter's latest column is about the revelation that Mark Felt is "Deep Throat."  In it, Ann shows that she is unafraid to echo the wingnut conventional wisdom about the matter (Felt only leaked about Watergate because he was mad that he didn't get to top job af the FBI after Hoover died; by helping to bring down Nixon, Felt is responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent Asians; "Deep Throat" was actually a composite figure, so Felt isn't him; if Woodward and Bernstein were actually good investigative journalists, they would have reported on Bill Clinton's rape of Juanita Broaddrick).  But I enjoyed it because she also manages to find a woman to criticize in the midst of all this: Mark Felt's daughter.  See, Ann doesn't much care for women, and it annoys her when they aren't leading chaste, dutiful, home-centered lives -- because when females step out of the kitchen, then they intrude into male territory.  And that's Ann's gig. Here's Ann:  Also ironic is that Felt's free-love, flower-girl daughter was estranged from her father for decades on account of her rejection of conventional bourgeois institutions like marriage. Now she is broke – because of her rejection of conventional bourgeois institutions like marriage. (Too bad she didn't follow Pop's advice to "follow the money.") Ann is presumably basing this salvo against Joan Felt on the recent Santa Rosa Press-Democrat piece about Joan (here's a link to the FreeRepublic copy of the story). This is the portion of it that Ann is apparently referencing: While Mark Felt was wrestling with Watergate, his daughter Joan was raising a counterculture family with three children that did not include marriage. Her father strongly disapproved, straining their relationship. With the birth of her first child in 1974, Joan Felt became the breadwinner of her young family, working a variety of low-paying jobs and living in small rentals in Guerneville and Santa Rosa. Around the time of the birth of her youngest son, Nick, she and her father began rebuilding their relationship. [...] She told the newspaper there were many reasons her family wanted to reveal his role, but added "I won't deny that to make money is one of them." "My son, Nick, is in law school and he'll owe $100,000 by the time he graduates," she said. "I am still a single mom, still supporting them to one degree or another, and I am not ashamed of this." So, is Joan broke?  There's nothing to indicate that this is the case.  She works for a university, and presumably makes enough to save her from getting her meals out of dumpsters.  Actually, it seems like it's her kids who are the needy ones (and they are all over 21, so it's not like Joan is required to support them).  And was it Joan's rejection of marriage that caused her sons to think that Mom should help them with their educational expenses?  There's nothing in the article that supports this conclusion (and even if Joan had been a firm believer in the conventional bourgeois institution of marriage, she and her husband, like many couples, might have gotten divorced, leaving Joan to support the kids to one degree or another, on her own. )  But I like Ann's advice that women should follow the money to men, and then marry them for it.  It's nice to see conservative women supporting gold-digging as a career option..  And was Joan estranged from her father for decades?  Well, it seems that the estrangement lasted from roughly the birth of her first child to the birth of her third son.  That was seven years.  But we don't expect Ann to be factual when discussing a woman who pooh-poohed conventional bourgeois institutions, do we? But back to Ann for more insight into that dirty hippie, Joan Felt: She lives in a house bought for her by her father (evidently skirting the standard "as long as you live in my house you'll live by my rules" lecture) If Ann had a daughter, and this daughter ever joined a commune and had three kids,  Ann would never let that daughter and the grandkids live in half of her duplex, not even if the daughter left the commune a long time ago, was working diligently to raise the kids by herself, and could use a bigger place to live.  No, not even if Ann was 91-years-old and had had a stroke, and could use some help from that daughter.  Ann would rather die alone and unloved rather to forgive that daughter from being a dirty hippie in her youth.  (Of course, since Ann will die alone and unloved, this scenario isn't totally hypothetical.)  [A]nd said she decided to reveal her father as Deep Throat to try to make some more money. "I'm still a single mom," she explained, "I am not ashamed of this." She ought to be. See, the idea of marriage is to get a man other than your own father to support you while you raise children. So that's the idea of marriage.  No wonder we don't want the homosexuals to be able to join the party. Anyway, Joan's kids are now about 31, 26, and 24 -- why isn't Ann giving them a lecture about how the idea of marriage is to get a woman other than your own mother to support you while you go to school? (Yeah, because Ann hates women who don't follow the rules more than she hates men who sponge off their moms.)  (Guess what she does? That's right! She's a teacher!) Well, she teaches Spanish at Sonoma State University and Santa Rosa Junior College (she has two language degrees from Stanford, and studied in Chile on a Fulbright scholarship; the Wash Post says that she's a professor).  But what the heck is Ann's point?  That teachers typically rely on their fathers to support them?  Or that teachers are just the kind of people who would join communes in their youth (is this a veiled slap at the NEA)?  Or is this just a gratuitous dig at teachers, who are often women, and therefore contemptible? Anyway, while it's arguable that outing your frail, old, possibly confused father as "Deep Throat" in order to make some money isn't a noble thing to do, I think that it's interesting that Ann jumps on Joan for all the wrong reasons.  My guess that this is because Ann's Dad, the union-busting lawyer, would have been proud of Ann if she had sold him out for a million-dollar book deal, but would have disowned her in an instant if she had betrayed the family honor by rejecting conventional bourgeois institutions like marriage.  But wait, Ann isn't married!  So, I guess it's a good thing that he didn't live to see the disgrace Ann has brought to the family. P.S. For some more off-the-wall Deep Throat commentary, we turn to nutcase Gary Aldrich, who harangues Felt for doing something even worse than causing the deaths of millions of Asians: making the Bureau look bad. Let’s review what was happening in our country during the Nixon presidency: entire cities were being burned to the ground, and banks and universities bombed, while hard-Left Marxist radicals like Bernadine Doran called for “Revolution!” even as they stuffed cash into their pockets that had been funneled to them by the Soviet Union.  Um, is Gary saying that the Weather Underground burned entire American cities to the ground???  Oh, and apparently Gary is losing the edge necessary to hate hippies for 40 years, because the hard-left Marxist radical was actually named Bernadine Dohrn.  Geez, talk about making the Bureau look bad! 3:12:00 AM