I have not seen one minute of TV coverage of the Democratic National Convention, and Lord willing will have a similar viewing experience for the Republican one. A political junkie I am not, preferring to focus more on religious issues, foreign policy and military affairs (and all three intertwine).But I suppose I’ll tune in some tonight and the duty of a citizen will impel me to watch at least Kerry’s speech on closing night.

In the meantime, Geitner Simmons (who on-site covered both 1988 conventions in 1988) has some brief observations about last night’s events.

And read Geitner’s post about how “creative destruction” underlies economic health and prosperity, and why avoiding creative destruction has sent Old Europe’s economies into free fall.

[Via One Hand Clapping]

I cannot agree more about the conventions. They are tedious and boring! Much ado about nothing!

I did enjoy the short read by Geitner on “creative destruction” and Old Europe. It is a subject that continues to surface as we ponder about our friends in Europe and where they might be going. I guess the problem is that they are not going anywhere but are being left behind.

A Kerry Adviser Leaves the Race Over Missing Documents. Samuel R. Berger resigned amid criticism over his improper handling of classified documents on terrorism. By By ERIC LICHTBLAU. [The New York Times > Home Page]

If the New York Times cannot make this look good no one can. Since they are the ring leaders of the media bias craze I thought they would be the nicest to Mr. Berger's plight. They stressed that the removal of the documents was inadvertent but said little else. Since they won't ask the probing question that is on my mind I will. I would like to believe that this was a simple mistake but the material he removed is confidential. The rules are well known and strict. A former National Security Advisor should be very familiar with the rules concerning the handling of confidential documents and the consequences of breaking the rules. How is it that a man advising Bill Clinton and John Kerry on national security matters could make this type of "inadvertent" mistake with high profile confidential documents? Is our former National Security Advisor sloppy? What does this say about the quality of his advice on national security matters and the character of Mr. Berger? A man of character would of  returned the material when he first detected that he had made the mistake. He or she could then admit that they had made an "inadvertent" mistake and move on with their life. It appears he did not return the documents for several months. He returned some of the documents when the National Archives I asked about them. A search warrant was issued and several documents are believed to have been inadvertently discarded! By my reckoning there was more than one mistake here and only one of the mistakes can be "inadvertent". I always wondered why Bill Clinton's friends and advisors did not try to do more to stop him when he started his affair with Monica. What were they thinking? Now I think I have seen a glimpse of the character of Clinton's inner circle and it is not pretty. His association with the Kerry campaign is now a liability that will be hard to get rid of.

Media voices proliferate from the left and right.

[Via Christian Science Monitor | Top Stories]

A fascinating article that continues a string of articles about media bias. I recently reviewed which television newscasters I watch and my preference for quite some years remain the newscasters on PBS. This has been reinforced in recent years as I have detected an obvious slant to the news by CBS, ABC, and NBC. I prefer that my newscasters present opposing viewpoints and not try to overtly influence my decision.

. . . is pretty close to what I said. Investors.com, a site of Investor’s Business Daily, discovers the liberal bias in the media and asks a blunt question:

Using the median ADA rating of the 435 members of the House of Representatives as the most appropriate definition of a centrist voter in America, the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, USA Today and CBS Evening News are not just liberal. Their ratings are much closer to the Democrats’ average ADA rating in Congress than they were to the center, and miles from the Republicans’ average rating.The liberal point of view is very important in America. It is needed to provide balance and ensure everyone’s ideas are heard. The crucial question now is: At a time of war and future terrorist risk to our country’s safety and open way of life, will the liberal media’s bias help defend and protect us or weaken and undermine us?

Which is about the same question I wrote in “Dueling biases” last May. I wrote that there are only four possible outcomes to the present war, only one of which is positive for the United States specifically or the West generally. Then –

For the news media, I ask you: which outcome do you want? It is not possible to pretend neutrality here, for the power of the media to frame the public’s debate is too great to claim you are merely being “fair and balanced.” There literally is no neutral ground here, no “God’s eye view” of events, and hence no possibility of not taking sides. One way or another, what you print or broadcast, what stories you cover and how you cover them, what attention you pay to what issues and how you describe them – all these things mean that you will support one outcome over another. Which will you choose? How will you support it? These are the most important questions of your vocation today. But you are not facing them at all.

The question is still urgent, and a lot more people are starting to realize it. (via Bill Quick)

[Via One Hand Clapping]

AlphaPatriot has an excellent summary posting about what the United Nations itself recently said about Saddam and WMDs.

And here is a post about what Afghanis and Iraqis think about how things are going in their countries. Seems they are more optimistic about their futures than Americans are. Among other findings: In Afghanistan:

Sixty-four percent of people thought the country was heading in the right direction, with just 11 percent saying it was going the wrong way. …

In Iraq, an independent polling firm found:

73% approve of new Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, who says he wants to crush the insurgents and foreign terrorists disturbing the peace of his country. …

Things are going much better in the two countries than is being reported here in the States. But you knew that.

[Via One Hand Clapping]

Stephen Hayes takes Knight Ridder to task over sloppy journalism. I do not mind too much that I continue to find the major media producers to have a political agenda or “view” as the New York Times put it. I do mind that it encourages sloppy journalism. Here is part of Stephen's comments:

The authors continue:

In its report, the Senate Intelligence Committee affirmed CIA analyses that found that while there had been contacts between al-Qaida and Iraqi intelligence officials during the 1990s, “these contacts did not add up to an established relationship.”

Again, not true. The report is misquoted. According to Conclusion 93 of the Senate Intelligence Committee report the “contacts did not add up to an established formal relationship.” [emphasis added] How many terrorist groups have “established formal relationships” with their state sponsors? State sponsors often–but not always–prefer to keep their terrorist connections loose and informal so that they might avoid detection, deniability being a major goal of states that use terrorists to do their dirty work.