Marquette War Year

The majority of Indian tribes in WI have no issues with the Warrior mascot name.

Even the one tribe leader from the Red Cliff tribe had no issues until Father Obi Won Kenobi Wild got a hold of him and convince the tribal leader that he should have an issue with the Warrior name. "These aren't the droids you are looking for...."

Marquette Alums need to go nuclear just like the Republicans are threatening to do with the filibuster. We need to contact the tribes that own the major casinos in this state i.e. Potowanomi, Ho-Chunk and Oneida. Let it be known that Marquette Alums will not be "doubling down" at any of their establishments until they put pressure on Father Wild and the Bored of Trustees.

The name change was not a result of any outrage on the part of any Indian tribes. The name change was a result of liberal, never put on a Jacques strap high brows who forced this name change on the University and it's alums.

A member of the Winnebago tribe called a local talk radio station and mentioned that Native Americans enlist in disproportionate numbers for the Armed Services and that on the day after 9/11, the Winnebago tribe declared war on the Terrorists. He said that they are proud to be Warriors.
How about that Mr. Fung!

Senator Kohl. Stop fillibustering the Bucks fans, the City and coach Porter..

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/buck/may05/324082.asp

Herb please sell the team if you don't plan on brining in enough talented players so that coach Porter has something to work with. You owe it to the fans and the city.

If your heart isn't in it then sell. You can't do it on the cheap. There is no Money Ball in the NBA.

DNC Inc. "We Scare Because We Care."

Just like the motto in Monsters Inc, whether it is: Social Security, Education Reform, Taxes, The Draft, etc., the Democrats never fail to distort issues to scare their constitutes. There is no substance just self serving spin. It is all about the party and not about their base.

How about the Marquette Tillmans?

How about naming Marquette's mascot in honor of a real life Warrior and American hero that gave up Gold(an NFL contract) and his life for his country?

NPR(Never Praise Republicans) Bias

http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110006657

TASTE COMMENTARY

A Turn of the Dial
Is NPR's "On the Media" guilty of media bias?

BY JACOB LAKSIN
Friday, May 6, 2005 12:01 a.m.

One of the most ferocious battles in the culture wars--one that, at times, makes the trench warfare of World War I seem short and sweet--has to do with the true character of National Public Radio. It is argued on one side that NPR is not exactly a model of pristine objectivity--that it skews leftward in its coverage and commentary. Naturally, NPR's officials and its supporters are inclined to see such charges as the ravings of an overheated "right wing" much too eager to find bias where none exists. How to test the theory?

Well, one way is to look at an NPR show that is itself devoted to the media. Surely this is one place where NPR's objectivity would be thunderously vindicated, assuming that it exists at all. And indeed, NPR's "On the Media," a weekly half-hour program set up a few years ago to take on media excess and error, is a perfect test case. Styling itself as a "critical watchdog," the show was intended, in part, to expunge the image, painted by critics, of a public broadcasting world in thrall to left-wing politics.

It has instead reproduced it.

In theory, "On The Media" disclaims any partisan agenda. It is concerned only with "finding fault and poking fun at all sorts of media institutions." More often than not, however, it focuses on that all-seasons bugbear of the political left: Fox News. It is taken as an established fact by the show's hosts, the irrepressibly snide duo of Brooke Gladstone and Bob Garfield, that Fox is a mere propaganda organ of the right and that its supposed sins of bias trump all others.

When Fox bested other networks in ratings during the Republican National Convention, Ms. Gladstone said: "So how do you explain the success of Fox News this week? Simply that the converted were being gathered in front of the electric fireplace." (It is impossible to imagine such a comment being directed at CNN or any other network for a seemingly Democrats-related ratings bump.) Ms. Gladstone nurses a particular distaste for Fox personages, most notably Bill O'Reilly. In February 2003, she sneered, on no compelling evidence, that the Fox pundit was "willing to attack families of the victims of 9/11 in his pursuit of the war." Fair and balanced media criticism this was not.

Still, at least it was media criticism. This is rarely a given with "On the Media." Even more than barking at Fox, the show relishes attacking the Bush administration. When mainstream media outlets scored the president's speech at the GOP convention, Ms. Gladstone, in a revealing burst of on-air candor, cheered their instincts: "I don't know where this new knife-wielding impulse comes from--maybe testosterone or guilt--maybe it was all the free massages the media got at the convention. I only know--I like it."

Similarly, when Dan Rather came under fire for using fraudulent evidence to cast aspersions at President Bush's service in the National Guard, host Bob Garfield rallied to the anchor's defense. Mr. Garfield stressed that "evidence of military dereliction by a future war president is also news." Of the president's visit to Baghdad in December 2003, Ms. Gladstone insisted that "a number of observers see it as yet another taxpayer-subsidized PR stunt by President Bush." There was little doubting that the hosts of "On the Media" were among them.

When President Bush held a press conference on Social Security several weeks ago, he touched off a barrage of criticism. But the commentary of Mr. Garfield had a distinctive edge. What riled him was less the content of Mr. Bush's words than the composition of his audience. In Mr. Garfield's estimation, this was a "vain and bizarrely deferential press corps" whose members were "not so much being journalists as playing ones on TV." They had failed miserably, in his view, to contest "the president's 70-minute political commercial." A first-time listener to "On The Media"--wrongly assuming a fair treatment of such matters--might have been forgiven for thinking that the press had been giving Mr. Bush a free pass on Social Security reform.

Arguably the show's lowest point came in November 2001. For a report about truth in wartime, the hosts invited author Alan Winkler to compare the Nazi propaganda ministry to President Bush's press briefings. Wary of furnishing any grist for the "liberal bias" mill, Ms. Gladstone ended the segment by reflecting that, all things considered, the analogy was a bit of a stretch. "Goebbels had a stranglehold on information, and that is not possible here, today," she observed. Listeners acquainted with her tirades against the Patriot Act--part of the show's continuing effort to convict the Bush administration of contempt for press freedoms--would have been struck by her sudden equanimity.

"On the Media" has even managed to turn an admission of its liberal slant into an attack on Mr. Bush. In a November 2004 segment, Mr. Garfield conceded that the show had indeed been critical of the president's first term: "Over the past four years, we have received mail from many listeners impugning our objectivity--mostly charging that we were biased against the president. After reviewing our four year record, we readily admit that we can detect an increasingly critical tone." But he went on to explain that, as a media "watchdog," "On the Media" was determined to safeguard the press from the Bush White House. The administration's disdain for freedom of the press was taken as a fact beyond dispute. Ms. Gladstone made the point still more starkly: Throughout the Bush presidency, she explained, there was a "sense that people in America aren't getting the truth." Her proposed remedy was to "use even higher wattage in the effort to peer in." Left unanswered was why this was the business of a program ostensibly devoted to media criticism.

Yes, NPR's attempt at media-critique is an egregious example of the kind of problem that, in a better world, such a show might point up or correct. Perhaps grasping the failure, NPR recently appointed an ombudsman to address public concerns about everything from reportorial accuracy to editorial bias. But its choice of Jeffrey Dvorkin, a former NPR executive, does not inspire confidence. In a March interview he assured NPR listeners that he was an "equal opportunity shin-kicker." Then he dismissed conservative criticism of public radio.

NPR "comes under attack quite frequently for its apparently left-wing bias," he explained, "but most of these criticisms come from media organizations that are openly conservative. So I take those kinds of criticisms with a certain amount of salt." Mr. Dvorkin also noted that liberal bias, far from being a problem, should be seen as an occupational quirk among journalists: "There is some kind of liberal empathy on the part of some journalists, because their curiosity about how other people live tends to involve a certain liberal stance," he said. An incident this week inadvertently revealed the reflexive character of this "curiosity." Tom Magliozzi, co-host of the NPR staple "Car Talk," described President Bush as what the Washington Post termed an "unprintable vulgarity." NPR spokeswoman Jenny Lawhorn offered the classic defense: "I'd like to point out that 'Car Talk' is editorially independent." How comforting.
Mr. Laksin is a writer at the Center for the Study of Popular Culture.

Marquette's Board of Trustees Gone "Wild"

Father Wild vows to stand firm with Mascot name change.

"It's Gold Jerry. Gold!- Kenny Banyon.

At least now Loyd Brawn is off the hook for his name tag campaign. Marquette has topped his marketing genius.

"Wild Fire"

It's Gold. Period.

Marquette officials stand by nickname despite negative reaction of alumni, fans

By DON WALKER and TOM HELD
dwalker@journalsentinel.com

Posted: May 5, 2005

Despite a steady drumbeat of heavy criticism and derision over the choice of Gold for the school's nickname, top Marquette University officials insisted Thursday that there was no turning back.

We're done," an upbeat John Bergstrom, the chairman of the school's Board of Trustees, said in an opinion echoed by Father Robert A. Wild, the university's president. "This is not an optional program. This is going to be a brand that we're going to build."

Clinton Lied. 800,000 Rwandans Died!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/rwanda/story/0,14451,1183889,00.html
US chose to ignore Rwandan genocide

Classified papers show Clinton was aware of 'final solution' to eliminate Tutsis

Rory Carroll in Johannesburg
Wednesday March 31, 2004
The Guardian

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB117/

The U.S. and the Genocide in Rwanda 1994

Information, Intelligence and the U.S. Response

by William Ferroggiaro

The U.S. and the Genocide in Rwanda 1994

Information, Intelligence and the U.S. Response

by William Ferroggiaro

http://idcs0100.lib.iup.edu/~tconelly/Africa/Reading/RwandaViolenceUSPolicy.htm

March 26, 1998
NY Times

Critics Say U.S. Ignored C.I.A. Warnings of Genocide in Rwanda

By TIM WEINER

President Clinton. When is Ricky Ray going to get his Pecan Pie?

President Clinton approved of the killing of Ricky Ray Rector. Ricky Ray didn't even know what was happening. He set aside his pecan pie for "later". There would be no later for him.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1112-04.htm

Published on Monday, November 11, 2002 by the

Dems Have Only Themselves To Blame

by Harley Sorensen

A date which ought to live in infamy for the Democratic Party is Jan. 24, 1992. That's the day Rickey Ray Rector was executed in Arkansas while Gov. Bill Clinton stood by and did nothing. On that day in Arkansas, the Democratic Party also died. Its body is still with us, to be sure, but its heart and soul died 10 years ago. Rickey Ray Rector, for those who would like to forget, shot and killed police officer Bob Martin in Conway, Ark., in 1981. After firing on Martin, Rector shot himself in the head. He botched the job, succeeding only in turning himself into an idiot. His brain was so wrecked that before going to the execution chamber, Rector saved part of his last meal "for later." Bill Clinton was running for president in 1992 when Rector was put to death. Clinton ran as a Democrat. In those days, only 10 years ago, most Democrats opposed capital punishment. It is safe to say that nearly all Democrats then were opposed to executing retarded people, no matter how severe their crimes. But Clinton remembered the downfall of one Michael Dukakis four years earlier. Dukakis, the Democratic governor of Massachusetts, saw his presidential aspirations go up in smoke partly because he was perceived to be soft on crime. In politician-speak, and particularly Republican-speak, any public official who doesn't have a brutish attitude toward society's losers is soft on crime. In Dukakis' case, rapist-murderer Willie Horton was rather stupidly furloughed from a Massachusetts prison, only to escape to Maryland to rape again. He was caught and quickly became a political liability to Dukakis, who was castigated in the 1988 Democrat primary by one Albert Gore Jr., another failed presidential aspirant of recent fame. Willie Horton went on to become a legend in dirty politics when the friends of George H.W. Bush used him in campaign ads against Dukakis. As you'll recall, the tactic was successful, so King George I had the opportunity over the next four years to wreck the American economy, a job his son is now seeking to finish while conquering the world in his spare time. In any case, Bill Clinton was resolved in 1992 not to face a "soft on crime" rap, so -- although he had it within his power to grant executive clemency -- he stood by and did nothing while an idiot was deliberately put to death in his state. Clinton's success as a politician was not lost on other Democratic hopefuls, nor on Democratic voters, so they followed his lead in abandoning all liberal principles in favor of expediency. Tired of losing to criminals like Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew, or amiable clowns like Ronald Reagan, or ex-CIA chiefs like George H.W. Bush, the Democrats decided that the only way to beat 'em was to join 'em. So they did. In 1999, when Bill Clinton sent our frighteningly eager military machine off to ravish Yugoslavia, nary a discouraging word was heard from the Democrats. A few months earlier, ironically, Serbs in Belgrade had met and shared memories with a few of the hundreds of shot-down American airmen they had rescued during World War II. There is no word on whether our old Serb friends survived the 1999 bombings, but best estimates are that 3,000 Yugoslav civilians did not. And the Democrats, not wanting to appear soft on tyrants, cheered Clinton's war, which was billed as "a just war." (They got it wrong. It wasn't a just war; it was just a war.) Part of the reason Clinton was so roundly hated by conservatives was his knack for stealing all their issues. He was so "hard" on crime that he appeared regularly in photo ops with uniformed officers behind him as he proposed or signed legislation narrowing civil liberties or expanding federal punishments. Clinton didn't make up stories about ungrateful welfare recipients the way Reagan did, but he did propose, as a candidate, that anyone deemed capable of working be kicked off welfare after two years. (Most liberals wouldn't object to that if it included the provisos that living-wage jobs be available and the hapless welfare recipients be trained to fill them.) In short, many of Clinton's views and policies were just a little to the right of those once espoused by Barry Goldwater, who in his day was considered a right-wing extremist. Now, he'd be a middle-of-the-roader. So, in this election season, which ended last Tuesday with a magnificent victory for the forces of darkness and a solid defeat for the Democrats, the Democrats presented themselves as . . . nothing. Instead of presenting a vision for the future, their strongest selling point was that they were not as bad as the Republicans. In California, that worked. Even though the Democratic candidate for governor was an abomination, the Republican seemed worse, a man determined to lead us back into the Dark Ages, if we were dumb enough to elect him. But California was the exception, and elsewhere in the country the Democrats came across as unconvincing mini-conservatives. They deserved to lose. They didn't offer a choice. So they were defined by their opponents, who zeroed in on the excesses of liberalism. The candidates themselves rarely made a case for the finer points of liberalism. This week, as the Democrats lick their wounds and try to regroup, it seems they'll be trying to figure out how to be even more like their Republican conquerors. This does not bode well for the republic. And, if you like, you can blame Clinton for it. Harley Sorensen is a longtime journalist and iconoclast. His column appears Mondays. E-mail him at ©2002 SF Gate