Disappointed in NPR's actions

NPR's behavior of getting rid of their executives today for expressing carefully edited and manipulated opinions shows a cowardice that gives it's opponents exactly the leverage it wants to further attack it.  Saying that tea partiers are racist and crazy is not radical idea, a lot of people think it.  By giving into this manipulation is concedes that they did something wrong.  NPR should have stood up and fought it or probably more effectively they could have ignored it.  Adulterers and criminals can attack NPR with some sort of moral superiority they believe in and their minions believe in, but NPR cowers and caves within hours.

I don't even remotely buy that NPR is biased.  The ALWAYS have opposing viewpoints...ALWAYS.  they try so hard to be fair that they end up putting more conservatives on the air.  I heard a bit this morning where some guy was defending Peter King's Islam hearings, there was no other person there, pointing out that for years King support terrorism in Ireland or that by continuing to kick Muslims that you further radicalize them, King plays into the hand of the radicals by treating Muslims as second class citizens, but NPR didn't present that truth...ONLY the King view.  Bias my ass.

Man up NPR and instead of conceding with all the bravery of a mouse, defend yourself.  Show the truth, show your neutrality, use data (it will be lost on the people who hate you b/c facts never get in the way of a firmly held Fox-given belief).  Stand up, it's the one thing that middle America understands.  Newt Gingrich can blame his infidelities on his patriotism and people will eat it up, surely NPR can stand up for truth.

Why is MSM talking in whispers about this story?

Why the mainstream media near silence on this? It's buried on all the news sites, you can be damn sure if it was someone who wasn't a in his demographic, it would be everywhere. Is it because it's a neo-nazi, hit a little too close to home for the tea party? I went to Fox News, who has a big thing for terrorism but their HUGE headline is about NPR.


So, much for a liberal bias in the media.

This is real terrorism, perpatrated by groups who are dangerous.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/us/10bomb.html

We distort, You blindly accept

There is a WHOLE real world going on outside the made up world created by the Republicans and Fox "news", considering their viewers will never know about the truth of what's going on in the world is my duty as an American to shed light where there is only darkness...you're welcome:

As Media Matters noted, on March 3, 2011, Fox News used footage shot by a local Wisconsin photographer to falsely label Wisconsin union protesters as "violent." The video showed protesters confronting Republican State Senator Glenn Grothman as he attempted to enter the Wisconsin capitol building. Although the video clearly showed no violence being committed, and in fact, the protesters breaking into chants of "peace" and "peaceful," Fox falsely depicted the crowd as "violent protesters," and an "angry union mob," who "ambush[ed]" Grothman.

In a statement to Media Matters, Phil Ejercito, the photographer who shot the video, responded, slamming Fox News' distortion of his material:

...

Let there be no ambiguity: I condemn the use of my work to distort the truth about the spirited but non-violent protests here in Madison. I believe that this is a genuinely dangerous narrative that Fox News is helping to create. Prior to Gov. Walker's Feb. 11 unveiling of his budget repair bill, the last time a Wisconsin governor invoked the National Guard in response to labor, seven demonstrators were shot dead in front of the Bay View Rolling Mill. I am deeply disturbed to consider that my work is being misused to establish a fictional narrative of violence by the working families of Wisconsin, and I encourage people to watch the entire clip on YouTube for themselves to understand the full context and decide for themselves what truthfully took place.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201103040013

Because the media never follows up on the truth after the lies make a media splash

So, I figured I'd help educate rather than have anyone continue to spout data that has been proven to be wrong:

 

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2011/03/phoenix_police_finally_admits.php

 

And one of the stories that led to the admission:

 

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2011/02/new_times_review_of_phoenix_ki.php

 

Phoenix police reported that there were 358 kidnapping calls in their community during 2008, and that a majority of them were linked to drug and human smuggling across the Arizona-Mexico border.

In recent months, Phoenix police union leaders have raised questions about the veracity of those statistics. And while they promulgate doubt, City Manager David Cavazos, Police Chief Jack Harris and Mayor Phil Gordon continue to dismiss concerns that kidnapping statistics are inaccurate or intentionally inflated. 

A New Times analysis of 264 of the 358 reported kidnappings shows that only about one out of every four incidents labeled as kidnappings in 2008 appeared connected to border-related crimes.

Chief Harris had agreed to discuss the kidnapping statistics with New Times, but a few days later, a police spokesman said that Harris was going to pass on the interview. 

Police officials say they aren't commenting because of an ongoing audit of those statistics by the Department of Justice's Office of Inspector General.

New Times reviewed 264 police reports on a list of 2008 kidnappings -- a list generated and released by the Phoenix Police Department. While all 358 reports on that list are titled "Kidnapping," at least 53 of the actual police reports do not have the same title.

For instance, 24 of the police reports were titled armed robberies or extortions, 7 were listed as aggravated assaults and 8 were classified as possible violations of federal immigration laws. The labels on 14 other reports included a suspicious person, non-aggravated assault and robbery without a weapon.

...

But, of the 264 available police reports reviewed by New Times, only 64 incidents had discernible ties to human smuggling and kidnapping. That means thatPhoenix was dealing with Mexican-style kidnap-for-ransom cases an average of once a week, not daily. 

...

On May 13, 2008, a 20-year-old man attacked his ex-girlfriend after she drove to his apartment complex to pick up money that he owed her. When she arrived, he got into her truck and they spoke for a few minutes. 

He asked her for a kiss, and she said no. Her refusal angered him, and he grabbed a fistful of her hair, and then her throat when she started screaming. She tried to get herself and her child out of the car, but he got a hold of her shirt, ripped it along with the purse she was holding. He forced her to stay inside the car for more than half an hour before she eventually escaped.

She reported the crime to police the following day. Cops drove to his apartment, he admitted the attack on his ex and was arrested. 

The single-day investigation did not require intensive resources and the nonstop involvement of 60 specially-trained police officers and detectives, but it is among those 358 kidnapping cases purportedly assigned to specially-trained police squads. 

Another report, this one dated March 21, 2008, notes an early morning call from the Blessed Sacrament Church to Phoenix police. A priest told police he received an e-mail from someone threatening to kill him if he didn't pay $15,000. He said he had no idea who sent it. 

Cops went to the church, picked up the e-mail and logged the incident as DR 2008-80486550, a five-sentence departmental report labeled, "Extortion."

The single-page report from 2008 makes no mention of any harm coming to the priest, or of anyone being kidnapped. Nevertheless, it ended up on the list of kidnappings in that year

No doubt the right wing still thinks this is a "tough stance" on illegals

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110302/ts_yblog_thelookout/proposed-texas-immigration-law-contains-convenient-loophole-for-the-help

George Will disappoints with a ridiculous critique of "progressives"

Will: 

'Forever seeking Archimedean levers for prying the world in directions they prefer, progressives say they embrace high-speed rail for many reasons—to improve the climate, increase competitiveness, enhance national security, reduce congestion, and rationalize land use. The length of the list of reasons, and the flimsiness of each, points to this conclusion: the real reason for progressives’ passion for trains is their goal of diminishing Americans’ individualism in order to make them more amenable to collectivism.


To progressives, the best thing about railroads is that people riding them are not in automobiles, which are subversive of the deference on which progressivism depends. Automobiles go hither and yon, wherever and whenever the driver desires, without timetables. Automobiles encourage people to think they—unsupervised, untutored, and unscripted—are masters of their fates. The automobile encourages people in delusions of adequacy, which make them resistant to government by experts who know what choices people should make.'

The right seem to be talking out of both sides of your arse (again). So “progressives” who are all about shattering the status quo and improving the station of everyone, hate cars because they allow people to shatter the status quo and empower people to be mobile? If two people get together on the lawn of the Wisconsin State House they’re animals and rioters, as they fight for their rights that the Koch Brothers and the puppet governor try to strip their rights (protestors who work to be the “masters of their fates”, demand that they be seen as “adequate” , for their voices to be heard while the billionaires who stand to gain and the politicians who do their bidding ignore that adequacy and ability to shape their own fates, nay belittle the very act of demanding they be seen as adequate”)


Progressives who believe completely in the power of PEOPLE to change the world, hate that people are empowered?

While, Conservatives who hate change anything, keep the little people in their place so that the powerful can maintain their wealth and power are now the supporter of change and the little guy. They throw rhetorical tidbits to the ignorant to make them believe they’re on the side, just long enough to get elected and then they raise taxes for 98% of us and give the SuperRich more of the goodies. It’s really sad how gullible most “Republicans” are to this.

You can make the case that rail is a huge waste of money, but Mr. Will is overreaching and fails miserably to make some anti-progressive point here. Laughably fails. I expect a lot better from Will.