Friday, October 14, 2005

Bigots Don't Have To Make Sense

What is truly sad is that the broader readership of
The Springfield Reporter doesn’t object to Chuck
Gregory’s bigotry. I hope that their silence doesn’t
imply agreement. His statement that the “Israelis
knew about an imminent attack [on the World Trade
Center on 9/11], canceled their lease and moved out
less than two weeks before” was, at the same time, one
of the most infuriating and disheartening things I
have ever read.

He is referring to the Zim America Corporation, the
controlling company for the Israeli merchant marine
fleet, which had studied its position earlier in 2001
and by April had settled on Norfolk, Virginia as the
most effective venue for their operations. Their
lease was not broken, it was allowed to run out and
not renewed as of September 1, 2001, though a small
office was maintained for their shipping-tracking
computer systems - which were destroyed in the attack,
thus disrupting the entire merchant marine fleet of
Israel (dumb move for people who knew what was
coming). Mr. Gregory must be relying on the debunked
writings of Christopher Bollyn (American Free Press),
who’s become the sole source for this element of the
wider 9/11 conspiracy theorists. However, I wouldn’t
be surprised to learn he subscribed to Mohammed
al-Amir Atta, a retired lawyer and father to the
leader of the 9/11 hijackers, who, like Mr. Gregory,
blames the attack on the Israelis.

I read a lot. I spend a good deal of time researching
a wide variety of subjects. It is amazing the amount
of information out there and some of it stretches
one’s credulity, requiring serious consideration of
which sources one chooses to accept and repeat. The
easy access to credible information fuels my ire with
Mr. Gregory. It would have taken almost no time at
all and hardly any effort for him to have learned that
of the thousands who died that day, over 400 were
Jews. It takes a sick and twisted mind to buy into
such a story whose origin has been proven to emanate
from Pravda and Al-Manar Television. It comes as no
surprise to me that Mr. Gregory would quote Pravda
and, I guess, given his protests in the center of
town, it should come as no surprise that he’s a
mouthpiece for “the pro-Palestinian channel for Arabs
and Muslims.” I guess what bothers me is that it
doesn’t seem to bother anyone else enough for them to
write in about it.

It’s somewhat odd that Mr. Gregory has the ability to
feel everyone else’s pain (I draw your attention back
to the woman whose private life he described so
vividly from one epithet she yelled at him during one
of his protests), yet he’s unable to be touched by the
ruin of Larry Silverstein, another Jew linked to 9/11.
Granted, Silverstein is one of those rich people who
have more money than they should, according to Mr.
Gregory. Silverstein is also one of those
“pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps,” “self-made
success-stories” that Mr. Gregory told us never
existed. Mr. Silverstein earned his riches building
buildings like World Trade Center Number 7. He became
so enamored of the project that through a series of
good and bad events he ended up buying the WTC towers
on July 24, 2001 for $3.2 billion. The terms of the
deal were $616 million upon signing and $100 million
each year for the next ten years. And, yes, there’s
insurance - he insured the towers for $3.5 billion,
however, the insurance company counts the event as one
claim, not one attack on each building. This being
the United States of the Twenty-first century, before
the dust settled at ground zero, the lawyers descended
on Mr. Silverstein. Mr. Gregory’s kook theory doesn’t
explain how Mr. Silverstein, a friend to many Israeli
officials, including Ariel Sharon, Benjamin Netanyahu,
and Ehud Barak, got left off the list of those who
were warned.

As with most bigots, Mr. Gregory is long on blame but
disastrously short on responsibility. He wrote that
“George Bush will go down in history as the first
president to lose an entire city in peacetime.” What
his hatred blinds him to is the simple fact that
Washington, DC is a great distance away from New
Orleans and that the President of the United States
has no authority in local politics there. The Federal
government is barred from activating the National
Guard, that’s the purview of the State’s governors -
it’s that pesky document the Constitution that Mr.
Gregory so frequently ignores. It wasn’t George Bush
who squandered Federal money earmarked for levee
maintenance; that was Ray Nagen, the mayor of New
Orleans, who also neglected to force his people to
evacuate, who also neglected to provide transportation
for their evacuation. It wasn’t George Bush who
trapped people in the arena without food or water;
that was the Governor of Louisiana. But then, Chuck
Gregory has never allowed the facts to color his
jaundiced view of the world, only his hatred. What
Mr. Gregory steadfastly refuses to admit to himself is
that New Orleans has been run lock-stock-and-barrel by
Democrats for over sixty years. If there was poverty,
unemployment, drug-trafficking, and corruption there,
it wasn’t the fault of “the Republican agenda...geared
to creating crises for the purpose of rewarding

Mr. Gregory can continue to shoot spitballs at me from
his comfortably blinkered corner, but I’m just about
done with him. The lies he peddles are too simple to
refute with facts and his distortions are too bizarre
for serious consideration. His ranting reminds me of
the tirades my daughter spouts when she doesn’t get
what she wants, but she’s only

Followup for Mr. Otis: As I mentioned above, I do do a
lot of research and I can’t seem to find any reputable
historian who corroborates your claim that “the
Capitalistic Rockefeller-Rothschild financial empires
did finance the Communist movement in Russia, leading
to the Bolshevik coup.” Likewise, I found no evidence
whatsoever for a “Capitalist Establishment” funding
for the 1960s radical movements. That doesn’t mean
they are not out there, just that I couldn’t find
them; perhaps you could provide some real historical
analyses, rather than Adrian Krieg who is a leading
conspiracy theorist author. I was able to track down
your obscure reference to the Chinese in Panama, but
again I was unable to find any serious discussion of,
or even propositions for, a Chinese Red Army based
there. Finally, Mr. Otis, in the age of stealth
bombers able to fly around the world almost non-stop,
enter a theater of war, deliver a varied payload
capable of destroying anti-aircraft units, armored
vehicles, runways, installations, and personnel, and
then return home, why would you worry about the Panama
canal, especially given the existence of the Atlantic
and Pacific Fleets at either end of it?

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around

Friday, October 07, 2005

Another Ride On The Chuck Wagon

Let’s do it again. Last week, Chuck Gregory wrote a
letter which opened with “liberals are so accustomed
to being ignored and dumped on that they just get on
with life and concentrate on more important things,
like the pursuit of truth and justice.” He then
pretends to compare the honesty of David Brock and
Brent Bozell III through the medium of their websites.
It is amusing to note that Chuck couldn’t even get
those right: Bozell’s website is not,
which is AOL’s Instant Messenger! AIM’s site is and, to compound Chuck’s error, Bozell has
nothing to do with AIM (you can go to their website
and look at the ‘Who We Are’ and ‘FAQ’ links). Chuck
seems to think that “Accuracy in Media was founded in
the early Eighties by Brent Bozell,” however AIM was
founded in 1969 by Reed Irvine and Brent Bozell III
founded the Media Research Center
( in 1987.

However, since Chuck wants to contrast Bozell and
Brock, I’m game. The exercise tells much more about
Chuck than it does either subject. There is simply no
integrity involved with the comparison, just as there
is not really any comparison. Had Chuck actually
selected a few reports and compared them side-by-side
(as I have often done with liberal-conservative
issues) the facts would have been clear for all to
see. Instead, using duplicity and sleight-of-hand
Chuck gives credibility where it is not due. Chuck
should have compared the books each has written
(Bozell’s “Weapons of Mass Deception” and Brock’s
“Blinded by the Right”).

“Weapons of Mass Deception” is a quick and
straight-forward read that puts the lie to the
ridiculous claim that the media is controlled
conservatives, leans right, or is soft on Republicans.
One simply can not read the legion of specific news
stories itemized by Bozell and walk away with any
opinion but that the media is by-and-large leftist.
Far from being “ignored and dumped on,” liberals have
an eager and active promoter in the media.

On the other hand, “Blinded by the Right” is another
matter. “Blinded by the Right” is Brocks story of his
move from the Right to the Left. Remarkably, he
forgets to tell the story of his earlier move from the
Left to the Right, which would put his later switch
into better context. The book is totally subjective
and supported only by the reliability of the author,
David Brock, which begs the question: ‘how good is his
credibility?’ Frank Rich (certainly not a
conservative) writing for the New York Times, noted
that “by his own account, Brock has lied so often that
a reader can't take on faith some of the juicier
newsbreaks from the impeachment era in his book." For
instance, Brock promotes the liberal lie of the
virulent homophobia and anti-gay view of the
Republican Party in his chapter titled ‘Out of the
Closet,’wherein he writes about a ‘turning point’
episode involving David Horowitz, who also made the
move from Left to Right: “Soon thereafter, Horowitz
uttered a hateful anti-gay slur to an editor friend of
mine whom Horowitz didn’t know was gay. At the time, I
shrugged it off, not willing to face the truth about
my friends and supporters. Not until such epithets
were hurled at me would I realize I had been on a
fool’s errand in trying to carve out a place for
myself as an openly gay icon in the conservative
movement. Only then did I begin to see by allowing
myself to be used as a kind of gay right-wing poster
boy, I had been complicit in the bigoted politics and
rank hypocrisy of the conservatives." The first lie
here is that in the previous chapter, Brock described
how he was forced to admit his sexual orientation
under threat of ‘outing’ by a liberal gay-activist
group trying to muzzle him for his conservative
writings. The second lie is the Horowitz comment,
which was denied by Chad Conway, the ‘editor friend.’
It should be noted that contrary to the fable of the
left, there is a vibrant and active homosexual segment
of the Republican Party.

Along the same line, Brock further exposes his lack of
credibility on page 121 where he describes another
‘turning point’ moment for his falling out and
eye-opening separation with conservatives at the 1992
Republican National Convention. The Republican
leadership, he says, “virtually launched an antigay
pogrom...there was far less ideological affinity
between the GOP and me than when I had first come to
Washington. The party had left me and many other
libertarian-leaning conservatives back in Houston" The
problem here is that Brock, a San Francisco Bay Area
resident, lists Ronald Reagan as a personal hero.
That would be Ronald (friend of Jerry Falwell) Reagan.
The same Reagan who in 1984 (8 years earlier) stood
by Jeane Kirkpatrick’s anti-gay “San Francisco
Democrats” comments. So, it is hard to credit such an
epiphany as late as 1992.

David Brock has problems with credibility and it has
nothing to do with the Right, he was not twisted into
deceit by his conservative minders, as he would like
the reader to believe. Like most liars, Brock lies
even about little things. There as a fellow student
at Berkeley who he wanted to be close to, so he told
him he was adopted and he allowed the lie to continue
for years into their relationship. Brock wanted to be
editor in chief of the ‘Daily Cal,’ the university
rag, so he concocted a lie about his opponent. After
college, when Brock worked on his ‘Troopergate’ story
for ‘The American Spectator,’ he violated his editor’s
hold on the story and leaked it to CNN. Brock notes
that “when confronted, I came up with a clearly
implausible lie.”

It should be noted that the Brock website,
MediaMatters, is slightly over a year old now, having
opened in mid-May of 2004 “with,” as the New York
Times reported, “more than $2 million in donations
from wealthy liberals [and] was developed with help
from the newly formed Center for American Progress,
the policy group headed by John D. Podesta, the former
Clinton chief of staff. And Mr. Brock said he hoped it
could help provide fodder for fledgling liberal radio
talk shows being started across the country, including
those of the comedians Al Franken and Janeane
Garofalo.” That would be Air America, the ‘fledgling
liberal radio’ for ‘those comedians’ that recently
stole $875,000 from the Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club
of Bronx, NY. Brock also hired Katie Barge to manage
his researchers. The same Katie Barge who was allowed
to resign from Sen. Chuck Schumer’s (D-NY) staff last
month for her involvement in illegally using
Maryland’s Lt Gov Michael Steele’s social security
number to get his credit reports. MediaMatters is
heavily funded by George Soros, a fact which Brock
denied until March of 2005 when, confronted with his
organizations financials, he was forced to admit it.
Admitting the relationship is important to put
MediaMatters’ organizational point-of-view and
statements into context; far from being unbiased,
their defenses of, AirAmerica, Center for
American Progress, and other Soros front groups show
who Brock’s bosses are. This is critical considering
MediaMatters filed as a 501(c)(3) and may be in
violation of federal election laws.

Chuck states that there are “moral and ethical
differences between liberals and conservatives.” As
we can see, his champion, David Brock, is no paragon
of virtue and his morals and ethics are at best open
to interpretation. I am perfectly willing to consider
Brent Bozell III as a champion for my side and I would
encourage Chuck to dredge up whatever he can to try to
drag him down. Chuck describes Clarence Thomas, a
well respected jurist, as “a neo-conservative lackey.”
Well, Chuck, how about you putt your money where your
mouth is and give us some information to prove your
smear. Chuck describes Bozell as “a right-winger who
thought that if you whine enough, people will start to
take your claims seriously.” Well, Chuck, how about
you give us some examples of Bozell’s whining, it
seems to me you’re the whiner here, full of gripes and
groans but not very much fact or evidence and as for
ethics and morals...well, let’s remember who your
champion is.

Yahoo! for Good
Donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.