Steve Schacher

I don't know what this guy's problem was, unlike the Blair incident where institutional pressures at the New York Times elevated him beyond his abilities and experience level. Personally, I think the media doesn't need moles to discredit them; they're doing a fine job all by themselves. The internet is allowing the interested reader to seek news elsewhere, and that allows the reader to notice what is not being covered here vs. what is being covered by the European and Asian press. That was recently evident with the way the London press carried stories about the American press quietly researching a Kerry affair with an intern. The American press blockaded that story. I think the Iraq war also opened many people's eyes due to the imbedded reporting vs. what the news anchors reported. It became a case of "Who are you going to believe, us or your lying eyes?"

I thought about that, but it is a legit news story about a finance technology company (not that anybody is going to read past the headline...).

From FinanceAsia.com: quote:Misys gives Pecker head job By Nick Lord 05 March 2004 Rudi Pecker assumes position in top slot in Asia. After 14 years inside Misys in Europe, Rudi Pecker has been elevated to the financial technology company's Singapore office, to become head of Asia Pacific sales. In this role, Pecker will head all Misys' strategic and commercial activities in the region, aiming to grow the business and enter into long term relationships. Pecker's breadth of experience, with over 20 years in the financial services industry, will enable him to rise to the challenges of growing the business in Asia, a region fertile for expansion. "The Asia Pacific region is very important to the Misys business, so having the right person at its head is crucial to our success, both there and worldwide," says Andy White, CEO of Misys Wholesale Banking Solutions. "We are delighted that Pecker will be leading the way" Misys systems cover solution in trade finance, international banking, treasury and capital markets, confirmation matching, continuous linked settlements, ebanking, middleware and financial messaging. Pecker will continue reporting to Armin Holst, Global Sales director for Misys Wholesale Banking Systems. "We are certain that [Pecker's] experience will help to significantly strengthen and ultimately grow, our business in Asia," says Holst.

Skull and Bones has been around for a long, long, time. It is an Ivy League "fraternity" for blue-blood Americans who are born into families of power in the Northeast. The first President Bush was a member of it, and it was also the political talk of his time.

Let's see if John Kerry starts politicizing the bombing in Spain after lambasting Bush over using images from 9/11.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Sites are doing all sorts of things with jpgs these days. My privacy software is warninig me whenever sites try to put a cookie on my computer. I sometimes get warnings when photos are linked to sites, like from Corbis. Unfortunately, once I reject the cookie, the software keeps rejecting the cookie until I log off and then back on again, which makes debugging to find the offending object difficult.

quote:Early pregnancy test kits are are issued to every woman, to be returned for government inspection. Positive tests are issued a summons to report to the nearest medical facility for examination. How far will they go?Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. quote:BTW, what do you all think of Echo's new avatar?I don't know. Something on this thread just started trying to put a cookie from brinkster.com on my PC.

quote:In January, the state Supreme Court ruled that unborn children at all stages of development are covered under the state's criminal homicide statute. The law exempts the death of a fetus during an abortion. Boy, talk about equivocating. It's murder in all cases except abortion. Is that a special interest, or what? The only other exemption that I can think of is self-defense. If a mother can be excused from killing the unborn, but viable, child, then why shouldn't she also be excused from killing the born child? This is a political ruling, nothing more. No right-thinking person would condone that compartmentalization.

quote:This will be my final opinion on this thread as any further discussion is counter productive.Then let me expand the topic a bit. The implied solution to this problem is that the women be compelled to have the c-section. That opens up a pandora's box of ethical questions. For instance: 1. Do we compel people to undergo other procedures? Suppose a family member has kidney disease and a sibling refuses to donate one of his/her kidneys. Does the government forcibly remove the kidney from one sibling so that the other sibling can survive, perhaps using the forced c-section case as precedent? 2. A welfare mother repeatedly gets pregnant even though she cannot afford to maintain the family. Does the government forcibly sterilize her? There were already cases of judges sentencing people to Norplant implants, and that was contested in court as medically intrusive, ergo cruel and inhuman punishment. I don't recall the outcome. 3. A repeat sex offender is sentenced to chemical castration. Previously, a repeat sex offender asked the state to chemically castrate him, but can the state forcibly do this? Where do we draw the line between people choosing their medical procedures and the government forcing them upon us? Of course, the most extreme examples of abuse are the Mengele Nazi experiments. The next most abusive are probably the American Tuskegee syphilis experiments against unknowing African-American men from the 1930s to the 1970s. This is where the slippery slope leads to.

From MediaChannel.org, a story called TV News Runs Hot for Kerry, Cold for Bush quote: TV News Runs Hot for Kerry, Cold for Bush NEW YORK, March 11, 2004 - Mainstream news organizations may "filter" the news, as President George W. Bush claimed late last year, but not to omit good stories from their Iraq coverage, but to broadcast more negative news about the president himself, according to a report released today by MediaChannel.org and Media Tenor. The report reveals a strong negative cast to ABC, CBS and NBC news coverage of the president thus far in 2004. Meanwhile, Senator John Kerry, Bush's certain opponent for November, has received more positive coverage by the same three networks. According to data compiled for MediaChannel.org by international media monitoring firm Media Tenor, network news broadcasts in January and February contained on average nearly three times more negative news statements about President Bush than about Senator John Kerry. During these two months the networks devoted the bulk of their reporting on Kerry to the candidate's string of victories in early primaries and caucuses. Network coverage of President Bush during this period tended to focus on questions about his WMD intelligence in the run-up to the war with Iraq, his military service record during the Vietnam War, analysis of his performance during the State of the Union address, and comparisons of his re-election campaign with the hotly contested race involving Democratic candidates. Of the 2,895 statements made about Bush during the nightly half-hour network broadcasts, Media Tenor analysts counted 834 (or 28.8 percent) of statements as negative. Only 10.4 percent of the 1191 network statements about Senator Kerry were negative. Over the same period, the networks shone a more benevolent light on Kerry. In the first two months of the year, more than 35 percent (or 422 of 1191 statements) of network coverage of Kerry was counted as positive. Bush's positive coverage rating amounted to only 11.9 percent of the total statements made about the president during the half-hour network broadcasts. CBS Evening News with Dan Rather leads the networks in negative coverage of the president and positive coverage of Kerry. More than 35 percent of the Bush-related statements made during CBS' nightly broadcast portrayed the president in a negative way. Only 8.9 percent of Bush coverage on CBS was counted as positive. By comparison, ABC World News Tonight with Peter Jennings was more neutral towards the president. Media Tenor rated ABC's Bush coverage as 22.7 percent negative, 12 percent positive and 65 percent neutral. CBS shone more brightly than the other networks when covering Senator Kerry. Media Tenor classified more than 38 percent of their coverage of the Democratic candidate as positive, ABC and NBC's news programs were positive on Kerry 33.4 and 35.9 percent of the time, respectively. "Bush continues not to be able to leave a convincing impression on TV news," said Roland Schatz, president of Media Tenor. "While the president received the largest share of media coverage against the field of Democratic candidates, the focus was on negative, not positive, stories about Bush." Media Tenor analysts pore over transcripts and watch the half hour-broadcasts to classify news statements as negative, positive or neutral. Their data for the first two months of 2004 show that more than 55 percent of all statements about the candidates were neutral -- or neither negative nor positive towards the candidate. When considering the remainder of statements, President Bush received far fewer high marks than his likely opponent for November. MediaChannel earlier this week shared the data via fax with the anchors and executives at NBC Nightly News, ABC World News Tonight and CBS Evening News. They have yet to reply to requests for comment. -- Timothy Karr is executive director of MediaChannel.org, which last month launched Media For Democracy 2004 (www.mediafordemocracy.us), a citizens-powered initiative to hold mainstream media to a higher standard of election coverage. ┬® MediaChannel.org, 2004. All rights reserved.

quote:Let's not forget that we are talking about a living breathing child, a BABY, the most helpless of us. Democrats are supposed to be for the little guy, yet, the littlest ones of our race don't matter, why, because they can't vote, so they don't count.Sshhhh... you're peeking a little too closely at their dirty little secret. Three of the Democrats' largest constituency groups are the National Organization of Women (NOW), Planned Parenthood, and The National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL). To them, late-term abortion is a cause worth fighting for, because to oppose it is to allow the foot in the door for further abortion limits. Therefore, a child in the womb and not yet delivered is not a person with legal standing. The odd dichotomy is that the Liberals cry about a woman's "right to choose" prior to the child being born, and then they take away all "right to choose" regarding the parenting and schooling of that child once it's born.

I'm surprised that NOW and Planned Parenthood hasn't jumped all over this yet. They (NOW) made their first misstep when the bodies of Laci Peterson and her unborn child washed ashore in California. The DA immediately filed two murder charges against Scott Peterson, and NOW knee-jerk reacted by saying that the unborn child was not a person and therefore cannot have been murdered. She was protecting NOW's turf for the partial-birth abortion argument. Outrage ensued, and NOW backed off their claim. However, the abortion lobby is pushing hard again on partial-birth abortion. It will be interesting to see how, on the one hand, a woman can be accused of murder for a child that was stillborn (declined medical treatment that was injurious to herself), while on the other hand, claiming that it is not murder to perform a late-term abortion. The hypocricy from the Left on this issue reeks.

From the Media Research Center, a review of the coverage of the Susan Lindauer story, where the media ignore that she worked for them and for Democrats: quote:Susan Lindauer, a former reporter for U.S. News & World Report, whose byline appeared over some 1991 stories about the ÔÇ£Air SununuÔÇØ scandal, was arrested and arraigned in federal court in Baltimore on Thursday, charged with various counts related to working for and accepting payments from the Saddam Hussein regime, in violation of working with a terrorist state. In the late 1980s and early 1990s she worked for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and Fortune before jumping to U.S. News in 1990 and then, by 1993, moving into a career as Press Secretary to a series of liberal Democrats: Then Congressmen Peter DeFazio and Ron Wyden of Oregon, Senator Carol Moseley Braun of Illinois and, briefly in 2002, for California Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren. But while CNN and FNC stories noted her specific journalistic associations and how she toiled for years for Democrats, the CBS and NBC stories on Thursday night skated over both parts of the resume, despite the fact that AP stories fully outlined her background, with NBC not even alluding to her Democratic connections, though both networks made sure to mention how sheÔÇÖs a ÔÇ£distant cousinÔÇØ of White House Chief-of-Staff Andy Card. ABCÔÇÖs World News Tonight did not mention the arrest of the resident of Takoma Park, Maryland, a city which has declared itself a ÔÇ£nuclear-free zone.ÔÇØ On ThursdayÔÇÖs CBS Evening News, anchor John Roberts referred vaguely to how she ÔÇ£worked at various times for four members of Congress.ÔÇØ Reporter Jim Stewart noted: ÔÇ£A former journalist who briefly worked as a speechwriter for Senator Carol Moseley-Braun, Lindauer comes from a political family. Her father once ran for Governor of Alaska. White House Chief-of-Staff Andrew Card is a distant cousin.ÔÇØ (Stewart also passed along how her neighbors said she was a ÔÇ£klutzÔÇØ as one recalled how ÔÇ£she couldnÔÇÖt even turn on her lawnmower last year.ÔÇØ) Over on the NBC Nightly News, Tom Brokaw announced: ÔÇ£An American woman is being accused tonight of conspiring to act as an agent for Saddam HusseinÔÇÖs intelligence service. Susan Lindauer, who describes herself as an anti-war activist, is a former journalist. SheÔÇÖs also the second cousin of White House Chief-of-Staff Andy Card. She was arrested today at her home outside of Washington, DC. Prosecutors say she went to Baghdad and then returned to the United States on IraqÔÇÖs behalf to try to persuade administration officials not to go to war. For her part she says she is innocent.ÔÇØ

Republicans are the party of hate? I ask you: Which party's supporters ran the ads that say that a vote for a Republican is a vote for more church burnings? Which party's supporters ran ads morphing Bush into Hitler? Which party's supporters ran ads saying that Bush was like dragging James Bird down the road again? Which party's supporters ran cartoon ads of Bush pushing old ladies in wheelchairs over a cliff? Which party's supporters ran newspaper cartoons calling Condi Rice a lesbian and a murderer? Which party's candidates called Bush a gang-leader? Which party's candidate called the Republicans the most crooked group of liars he'd ever seen? Which party's former vice-president said that Bush betrayed the country? Which party's senior senator said that Bush concocted the Iraq war at his ranch to aid his oil buddies? Which party's senator said that the Trent Lott gaffe is what all Republicans secretly think on the back roads of the South? The Republicans threw David Duke out of the party. When will the Democrats do the same with Robert Byrd? The Democrats also have people like Jim Moran in the House (who continues to say racist things), as well as Charles Barron in the NYC city council. At least the Democrats in Georgia tossed out Cynthia McKinney and her father (who blamed his daughter's loss on the J-E-W-S). I don't hear talk like that coming from Republicans, so they either don't do it or they hide it extremely well. Liberal became a dirty word when the Left became slaves to political correctness, and when moral equivalency meant that nobody should be punished for doing wrong because there was always a worse wrong out there going unpunished. Liberal became a dirty word when "equal opportunity" was no longer good enough, and "equal outcome" became the goal. It wasn't the Republicans that were playing on people's fears, it was the Democrats. They constantly accused Republicans of wanting to take away people's social security, starving children, freezing the elderly, etc. It was the Democrats who said that a reduction in the rate of growth was a cut in order to scare the elderly into thinking that Republicans were going to take their money away. As for Republicans marching lockstep with no diversity of thought, how do you compare the messages of Buchannan (isolationism) with Gary Bauer or Alan Keyes (religious right/family values), or Ross Perot (giant sucking sound) or Ronald Reagan (supply-side trickle-down), Steven Forbes and Jack Kemp (flat tax), George H Bush (faith-based initiatives). All these people ran for president, and all these people contributed to the wealth of ideas and debate that shaped the Republican party. Show me the same diversity of people and ideas that come from the Democrats. All the candidates on the Democrat side are marching lockstep with the following message: 1) no tampering with abortion (NOW), 2) more union workers (AFL-CIO and Teamsters), 3) more education spending (NEA), 4) affirmative action (NAACP), 5) judicial activism (People for the American Way) and 6) separation of church and state (ACLU). On all six of the "planks," all the Democrats march with one central voice -- show me the same diversity of opinion. [ 03-13-2004, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

quote:If anyone is being devisive in this country its the Republicans. Remember Willie Horton? Another little-remembered fact: It was Al Gore who first brought up Willie Horton, as an attack against Michael Dukakis in the Democrat primaries. Gore lost and Dukakis went on to challenge George HW Bush in 1988. The Bush team revived the Horton issue, but it was Al Gore who first leveled the charge. [ 03-11-2004, 11:00 PM: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

quote:criminal actions taken by Clinton while he was Governor of ArkansasDon't forget the most covered-up charge, that of selling tainted prison blood to Canada.

And it was a misdemeanor, not federal perjury and obstruction.

I was briefly using the Quisp character from my favorite breakfast cereal when I was growing up. It didn't scale down well, so I removed it. http://www.quisp.com/gfx/quispbio.gif>

Here's a follow-up amateur essay by the same person who wrote the one I posted the other day: quote:A follow up to my article on Friday. You'll remember I showed that the "outraged" victims who paraded around the networks this week blasting President Bush's television ads were leaders of a group called Peaceful Tomorrows, a group funded directly by The Tides Center, which is chaired by Teresa Heinz Kerry - wife of Senator John Kerry. Folks, this story seems to have no end. It appears Mrs. Kerry's organization, The Tides Center receives some of its funding directly from the Open Society Institute & Soros Foundations Network. http://www.soros.org/grants/research/resul...keyword&q=tides You might recognize a name in that organization's title. The "Soros" refers to none other than George Soros, the billionaire entrepreneur. Now you're asking yourself, "why does this matter? So a billionaire is giving money to Mrs. Kerry's organization, which in turns funds a group run by some 9/11 widows who lashed out at President Bush." Let me refresh your memory about Mr. Soros. "George Soros is founder and chairman of the Open Society Institute and the Soros foundations network. He is also currently the president and chairman of Soros Fund Management LLC, a private investment management firm that serves as principal advisor to the Quantum Group of Funds, a series of international investment vehicles." http://www.soros.org/about In an article in the Washington Post on November 11, 2003, George Soros was quoted as saying, "[defeating President Bush] is the central focus of my life, ... [the 2004 presidential race] is a matter of life and death." http://rds.yahoo.com/S=2766679/K=soros+and...anguage=printer In the same article, Soros is quoted as saying, "Neoconservatives are exploiting the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001." In a review of Soros' website, (Open Society Institute & Soros Foundations Network), there are a number of donations listed for the Tides Center/Tides Foundation. The sum of those donations (or grants, as the site calls them) is just a little over $10.5 million. (In addition, Soros has given $5 million to Moveon.org). http://www.soros.org/grants/research/resul...keyword&q=tides So while the Left and its minions are calling for the head of our President for campaign ads, which some victims' families say honors the day and the dead, there is a network of organizations waging war against George W. Bush and the Republicans. To recap the web of money and deceit the Left is using to gun for the White House: 1. Victims' families claim outrage over Bush campaign ads and media reports it as the few widows parading around the networks are speaking for all victims' families (while many family members sign an "Open Letter to America" claiming the Bush ads are honorable and respectful. 2. The spokeswomen for the "outraged victims" go on multiple networks and various times in various locations and recite the same lines (referring to "Bush reading to school children on 9/11" and "3,000 murdered on Bush's watch") claiming that Bush is exploiting 9/11 for political gain. 3. The spokeswomen are leaders of a group called Peaceful Tomorrows, and activist group that has protested the war in Iraq and other Bush administration actions. 4. Peaceful Tomorrows is funded by The Tides Center, which is chaired by Teresa Heinz Kerry, wife of John Kerry, political opponent of George W. Bush for the office of President. 5. The Tides Center/Tides Foundation has received more than $10.5 million from the Open Society Institute & Soros Foundations Network, and organization run by George Soros, who is quoted as saying the defeat of President Bush is a matter of life and death as well as claiming Conservatives are exploiting 9/11. So there you go. It's not a pretty picture. The same group of people who lobbied so hard for campaign finance reform and blamed Republicans for having huge political war chests, are in fact a large network of activist organizations, funneling cash from one to another, in an effort to defeat President Bush. It's a dirty little game, this thing called politics, but it appears the Left has figured out how to master it.... It's going to be a long hard road this year... as we're up against a group who thinks your vote is a matter of life and death. Hold on tight.

quote:Don't you think that if Bush had been revered as a hero by the firemen as in "He gave those bastards PAYBACK", he'd have that union's support?No, I don't. The unions vote Democrat, lock, stock, and barrel, no matter what. The unions supported drilling in ANWR and Bush attempted to pass a bill opening up ANWR to drilling, but the unions still went Democrat. The unions wanted a steel tariff bill and Bush gave them one, but the unions still went Democrat. quote:Rush digs up Mike Moran (your puppetmaster is showing) and that's taken as gospel?Mike Moran was one of the featured speakers at the televised NY celebration of firefighters after 9/11 (the one where Hillary Clinton was booed and VH1 replaced the boos with cheers). I don't need Limbaugh to remind me of who the players are. My memory's just as good as his. The media dig up Rita Lasar, and that's taken as gospel?

quote:Clinton was a criminal president, he was negligent and treasonous. quote:Opinion, not fact. Actually, it is fact. Clinton pleaded guilty to perjury and obstruction of justice, and settled a claim against Paula Jones on his last day in office. Clinton was also disbarred from the Arkansas bar for 10 years, and had his certification to appear before the United States Supreme Court revoked. [ 03-07-2004, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

quote:So I guess in a nutshell, the people who lost family members on 9/11 are only entitled to an opinion if it happens to agree with the Admin. What you're seeing is the megaphone effect of the media at work. In reality, the "family members of 9/11" consist of 3 women who have made the rounds of all the TV talk shows, and have been quoted repeatedly by the AP and other news sources in story after story to make it seem like the families of all 3,000 victims are up in arms. The truth is that just as many family members have signed letters stating that they support the President as have gone on television to denounce the president. What is at issue here is how swift the coordinated attack against these ads appeared. It's clear to me that this was planned well in advance, and that they were just waiting for the first ad to run in order to pounce. If you agree with that assessment, then the real people who politicized 9/11 are the ones who sought out widows and parents of victims, and fed them rehearsed lines prior to the first ads appearing. quote:What about the Firemans Association that said pretty much the same thing? Again, this isn't the Fireman's Association, it is the leader of the Fireman's Association making the statements -- I could point out Fireman Mike Moran as the opposite viewpoint. True, the union has endorsed John Kerry, as most unions do, but the rank and file firemen do not all share this opinion. Again, this is an example of the megaphone effect at work.

Race, I think you make good points. What will be interesting to see with the traditional minorities is how the changing demographics of America change minority politics. For instance, the emerging African-American affluent class (look at cities like Atlanta) is starting to cause a rift in the traditional African-American politics of civil rights (Jesse Jackson vs. Jesse Lee Peterson). I don't think we'll see the lockstep voting of African-Americans continue past this decade. If Republicans continue to hold the White House and Senate, then the minorities might begin to drift towards the power center, further hastening the downfall of the Democrats as Democrats are mostly united special interests. If Democrats regain the White House, this may change. However, Democrats will have to refocus their message on the center instead of trying to convince everyone that their left-of-center positions are really mainstream and everyone else is right-wing extremists. The Hispanic vote is wide-open. The focus has been on illegal immigration across the Mexican border, but what has not been emphasized is that Mexico is an 85% Catholic country. That means that traditional family values (as opposed to alternate lifestyles such as gay marriage) may swing Hispanics towards the GOP side. As an example, note how California had voted by over 2/3rds for Prop 22 (marriage between a man and a woman), had voted overwhelmingly against bilingual education, how opinion polls still show 2/3rds against gay marriage. Given how saturated California is with Hispanic emigre's (documented or otherwise), a large portion of those opinions must be coming from the Catholic Hispanic class.

Propaganda aside, what about the "outrage" over the 9/11 ads that I posted is untrue? The clues were the similar talking points. The facts are that Democrats used their war leadership as campaign issues, so what is wrong with Bush doing so now? The facts are that the ONE group, repeated over and over by the media to make it seem wide-spread, is financed by Teresa Heinz-Kerry. As far as Iraq and connections to Al Qaeda: The problem, as I see it, is with trying to draw a straight-line connection when Bush declared a War on Terrorism in general. Bush named an Axis of Evil, but he also said that "you're either with us or with the terrorists." Iraq was a money spigot. By taking out Iraq, Bush dried up a major source of money that funded terrorist cells. Sure, we went after the Taliban in Afghanistan because they were directly responsible for the attacks on 9/11. But in the larger War On Terrorism, Iraq was involved, if only as a safe haven training ground for terrorists, at least as a funder of terrorism (perhaps only for suicide bombers in Israel, perhaps larger involvement).

Incredible! That's the only thing that comes to mind. The military swept through Iraq in record time, used pinpoint accuracy to take out Iraqi military establishments while keeping the civilian infrastructure intact, and Baghdad fell without a fight, and yet Kerry claims that the military was "unprepared." quote:Kerry said that U.S. helicopters in Iraq even now "are flying missions without the best available anti-missile systems" and that "un-armored Humvees are falling victim to roadside bombs and small-arms fire. "The Bush administration waited through month after month of ambushes and only acted to start manufacturing armored door kits three months ago," he said. Would those "best available anti-missile systems" be any of the systems he voted to discontinue or defund? Armored door kits? I say those are grounds for impeachment!!