Today's Hoot!

NewsWeek Reporter Frets Pope Too ... Catholic

In the eyes of the MSM, Pope Benedict XVI has a problem. He's too darn . . . Catholic.

As the Pope begins World Youth Day in his native Germany, Today took the occasion to invite in Newsweek's Christopher Dickey for an oh-so-effete critique of Benedict XVI.

Interviewed by Katie Couric, Dickey first claimed that Europeans view Benedict "with some skepticism right now. People are looking at this Pope and saying what does he want to do by re-Christianizing Europe?"

Gee, and here I thought that was a Pope's job.

I bet Katie thinks that's real icky.

Here's a poser

Charles at lgf:

I propose a thought experiment. Suppose Western media really was deliberately trying to subvert democracy and aid terrorism. How would the coverage differ?

Beats the heck out of me!

Your United Nations contributions at work

I posted this a couple of weeks ago, but now that we have the first UN Ambassador since Jeane Kirkpatrick who has a set, it's come up again - Funding of Palestinian Propaganda By U.N. 'Unacceptable,' Bolton Says:

The United Nations' funding of a Palestinian Arab propaganda campaign timed to coincide with Israel's pullout from the Gaza Strip has increased tensions between the U.N. and American officials.

America's newly installed ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, labeled "inappropriate and unacceptable" the United Nations Development Program financing of materials bearing the slogan "Today Gaza, Tomorrow the West Bank and Jerusalem."

Mr. Bolton said yesterday that the UNDP had failed to explain why it funneled money to the Palestinian Authority to back the production of banners, bumper stickers, mugs, and T-shirts bearing the provocative slogan as well as UNDP logos.

Responding to angry reactions from Jewish and Israeli leaders, UNDP officials yesterday said financial support from the agency was intended to help the Palestinian Authority communicate with Palestinian Arabs during Israel's evacuation of Jewish settlers from Gaza.

Nice to know the UN has spare bucks for this kind of stuff.

In a letter to the American Jewish Congress, which had decried the funding of the propaganda materials, a UNDP administrator, Kemal Dervis, said it was "not at all acceptable" that the agency's logo was placed on the propaganda.

"We cannot be involved in political messaging," Mr. Dervis wrote. The UNDP manages nearly $4 billion in donor resources annually, operating in 166 countries.

The response from the UNDP was not sufficient, Mr. Bolton said yesterday. "Funding this kind of activity is inappropriate and unacceptable. We plan to raise the issue with UNDP and with others," he said in a statement to The New York Sun. In effect, Mr. Bolton expressed to the UNDP that the most serious problem for his office was not the logo, but the fact that the agency supported that message with its checkbook.

More by following the link - the UN weasels were glad to fund the message. They just didn't want their name on it. And, of course, it's really our check book.

Thank you, Jaime Gorelick!

Fun at the InstaPundit:

I'VE SUDDENLY STARTED GETTING A LOT OF EMAILS LIKE THIS ONE:

I am disturbed by your continual smears of honorable Americans like Jamie Gorelick. If you disagree with the opinions of Ms. Gorelick, then please voice that at your discretion, but engaging in personal smears campaigns at the behest of Karl Rove and Grover Norquist really do a disservice to your readers. Jamie Gorelicks memo did not disallow sharing of information between the military and the FBI. Please issue a correction in your next blog.

The thing is, I haven't written anything about Jamie Gorelick and Able Danger, so I guess I'm dropping the ball in the "continual smear" department. This post by Ann Althouse from when I was on vacation a week ago quotes an Investor's Business Daily editorial that mentions her, but that's the only mention of Gorelick on InstaPundit in over a year.

None of the emails contains a link or reference to any particular post, which makes me think that this is some sort of mass email campaign. Any idea where they're coming from?

Turns out it was the flying monkeys at ThinkProgress.org which is one of the corporate offshoots of the George Soros' funded Center for American Progress. In case you don't recall them, here's Spinsanity's summary:

The Center for American Progress and its sister organization, the American Progress Action Fund, are at the vanguard of liberal attempts to regain the initiative in the national political debate. Founded in 2003 with millions of dollars from donors hoping to more effectively counter the Bush White House and conservative groups, CAP relentlessly attacks conservatives and distributes talking points to its ideological allies.

Unfortunately, however, the group has also shown a repeated willingness to distort the facts in order to achieve its objectives. In a number of recent cases, CAP has twisted the words of its conservative opponents, misleading thousands of readers of its influential Progress Report newsletter. These tactics show that state of the art spin is increasingly indistinguishable from outright dishonesty.

They clearly aren't too bright either. If they want to see some abuse of Jaime Gorelick, they ought to come here. I wonder if George knows how they're spending his loot?

(Hat tip for the graphic: iHillary)

Bourgeois revolutionaries alert!

Or is it limousine liberals? Check out this meeting notice from Code Pinko Texas HQ to the vanguard of the proletariat in Crawford:

Subject: [codepinkaustin] CODEPINK Breakfast Saturday Morning in Crawford Reply-To: codepinkaustin@yahoogroups.com

Hello!

The Texas wide CODEPINK Slumber Party did not work out but we are still wanting all CODEPINK members to meet for breakfast on Saturday to plan and coordinate with one another.

We're meeting at Texas Tea & Coffee in McGregor at 8:30AM on Saturday, August 20th. It's at the corner of 3rd Street and FM 317. They will only have pastries and such that morning but they are the only place around that offers something other than Folgers.

I guess ham and eggs and a cup of joe with the locals at Spanos Coffee Station just don't cut it for the Pinkos. Sheesh, can you imagine a coffee shop full of them in their pink outfits sipping their lattes? It would be like a Barbie impersonators convention, if Barbie looked and sounded like Fidel Castro. As for the "Slumber Party," I won't go there.

All dressed up and no place to go

The crew of freaks showing up in Crawford to support St. Cindy, that is. That's because Cindy had to head home because her mother was ill:

As word spread through the ramshackle campsite, Sheehan's supporters expressed concern that her absence would also mean the departure of dozens of journalists who have been broadcasting her vigil to the world.

Not to mention the outlay on their party duds!

Sheehan's partisans also have become increasingly critical of the news media, complaining that reporters have questioned Sheehan's motivations and inquired about her family, her taxes and her husband's request for a divorce.

The aroma around St. Cindy got so bad that the MSM finally caught on? Can't prove it by me.

Women gathered in a tent for Code Pink, a peace group, looked ashen on hearing that Sheehan was leaving. A few began to cry as one spoke up to complain that the news media were trying to divide Sheehan's family. After a moment of silence they began singing We Shall Overcome.

No Kumbaya? The Code Pinkos shouldn't worry, they have People's Weekly World and Worker's World firmly on their side.

(Hat tip: FR poster JohnRoss for wading into the commie cesspool. Here's another that I didn't mention.)

And speaking of Cindy Sheehan

I don't know about you, but I was all upset when I heard that Cindy says she's protesting by not paying her taxes for 2004. My fear was that the hiccup in the revenue stream from Cindy not paying up on her moonbat media whore earnings would imperil the continuing operation of the Republic! Or at least some of the Federal facilities named after Robert Byrd. But one of the FR folks discovered that based on her tax liens, ole Cindy doesn't seem to have been paying her state and Federal taxes regularly since at least the mid-90's. (Try looking up "Sheehan, Cindy" yourself.) I wonder what her beef was then? I also wonder whether she tried deducting tin foil as a business expense?

When are they going to notice that she's a nut?

Cindy Sheehan, of course. It looks like even Chris Matthews (never the brightest bulb on the string) may be getting a hint:

Here's an indication of how radical Cindy Sheehan's views are--and a glimpse into why mainstream Dems won't go near her. This is from Mrs. Sheehan's appearance on Hardball (yeah, I know) last night. I will let it speak for itself. Hat tip: Reader R.L. Ward:

MATTHEWS: Can I ask you a tough question? A very tough question.

SHEEHAN: Yes.

MATTHEWS: All right. If your son had been killed in Afghanistan, would you have a different feeling?

SHEEHAN: I don't think so, Chris, because I believe that Afghanistan is almost the same thing. We're fighting terrorism. Or terrorists, we're saying. But they're not contained in a country. This is an ideology and not an enemy. And we know that Iraq, Iraq had no terrorism. They were no threat to the United States of America.

MATTHEWS: But Afghanistan was harboring, the Taliban was harboring al-Qaida which is the group that attacked us on 9/11.

SHEEHAN: Well then we should have gone after al-Qaida and maybe not after the country of Afghanistan.

MATTHEWS: But that's where they were being harbored. That's where they were headquartered. Shouldn't we go after their headquarters? Doesn't that make sense?

SHEEHAN: Well, but there were a lot of innocent people killed in that invasion, too. ... But I'm seeing that we're sending our ground troops in to invade countries where the entire country wasn't the problem. Especially Iraq. Iraq was no problem. And why do we send in invading armies to march into Afghanistan when we're looking for a select group of people in that country?

So I believe that our troops should be brought home out of both places where we're obviously not having any success in Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden is still on the loose and that's who they told us was responsible for 9/11.

One of Michelle's readers highlights the "they told us was responsible for 9/11" which is truly the cherry on top. As for the rhetorical question in the title of this post, I'm sure the MSM will hold their noses and continue dealing with her because "Cindy's fake but accurate."

It sure is a puzzle

Polipundit:

Bless Debra Burlingame's heart. Why is she not being championed by the media as one grieving a lost loved one. Doesn't she have the same "moral authority" to speak out about the war on terror, or at the very least the memorial at Ground Zero?

Lorie links to this post at Ankle Biting Pundits:

Showing a fervor not seen since Augusta National Golf Course refused to admit women, The New York Times editorial board once again takes aim at the courageous Deborah Burlingame, and her refusal to let a small minority of politically correct, anti-war Bush-haters turn Ground Zero into a "Why They Hate Us" memorial.

By our count this is the third editorial in just over a month slamming the efforts of Ms. Burlingame...

Read the rest, it'll get your heart started this AM. Maybe if she blamed the Jooz? Yeah, that would do it.

Today's Hoot!

Dept. of I Didn't Know There Were So Many Dentists:

Although circulation for newsweeklies remains flat or is dipping, I am still astonished that Time reports a circulation of 4.05 million copies. Are those real sales or do they give most of them away? I haven't read a copy outside a doctor's office in years.

Me too, and I'm always gobsmacked by the atrocious content when I pick one up in a waiting room. Time looks the way People used to, and People resembles some awful tabloid.