I’ve been writing seriously (writing for publication) for about two years. I’ve gotten a few telephone acceptances from editors before. But never have I gotten a telephone rejection.
After all, busy editors usually don’t take the time to call just to say, “No, we don’t want this article,” when it’s much simpler to reply to the e-mail you sent or not at all (which is typical). So why did I receive a rejection telephone call? Let me provide some context.
I occasionally submit my columns as op-eds to major newspapers, especially when I write something I think will have wide appeal. I sent my latest, “Stop the Presses!”, to several major newspapers, liberal newspapers. I wrote about a study called The State of the News Media 2004, which reports on several trends, including the public’s distrust of mainstream media.
I’ll admit that I don’t expect a piece critical of liberal journalists to end up in a major newspaper, but because I know that either the editor or his/her assistant actually reads submissions, I wanted them to at least know my opinion.
I sent the piece to several newspapers today, and when I returned from work, I had a message from the Washington Post.
[click to continue…]
by La Shawn on April 20, 2004
in General
J.D. Mays over at Army of One has found a great way to get publicity and fresh material to post. Check out his latest blogger interview. Weird stuff 
And I believe you’ve seen this somewhere before.
by La Shawn on April 20, 2004
in Columns
“The idea that we would set out, consciously or unconsciously, to put some kind of an ideological framework over what we’re doing is nonsense.” — NBC’s Tom Brokaw, May 24, 2001.
Sorry, Tom, but you and the rest of the Bush-bashers have been exposed. Your industry is just finding out what the rest of America already knows: The mainstream media is biased toward the left.
Worthy of front page headlines, “The State of the News Media 2004″ was released last month by the Project for Excellence in Journalism (”Project”) with little fanfare and scant coverage. Why?
[click to continue…]
On Sunday, April 25, the Lord’s Day in some circles, special celebrity guests, VIPs and young volunteers will be observing “March for Women’s Lives.” The celebration will feature live music, food, and so much more!
At least one of my stereotypes about the National Education Association (NEA) has been shattered. Some of the teachers aren’t so liberal:
Thousands of pro-life teachers and school staff required to belong to the National Education Association across the country are offended by the union’s co-sponsorship of a pro-choice march in Washington this Sunday….
The problem, say pro-life members of the 2.7-million-member teachers union, is that they are forced to be dues-paying NEA members because of collective-bargaining agreements in their school districts.
Meanwhile, the NEA takes positions on issues contrary to some members’ religious beliefs, which are protected by the 1964 federal Civil Rights Act.
In a move designed to preempt the pro-life counter-march, the supporters of child-killing will hold a “prayer” breakfast before the rally.
That’s what’s so great about the USA. Child-killers and their friends have the constitutionally-protected right to appeal to their god.
He was there with Eve as she ate the forbidden fruit. He was there watching as Christ was dying on the cross. And he’ll be there on Sunday cheering right along with the crowd.
(Reuters photo) (After I posted the entry about the abortion march, I realized the subject of this post is also killing. But there are many differences between murdering unborn children and defense in war, which isn’t considered murder. That’s an interesting topic for discussion in a later post.)
A radio talk show host I occasionally listen to suggests that the United States should conduct this war the way WWII was fought.
For example, he suggested the U.S. dropped leaflets in the Fallujah area, warning the people to turn over those responsible for murdering and maiming the bodies of four American soldiers, and the same would go for the kidnappers.
In an effort to be humane, the U.S. would give them 48 hours to turn over the perpetrators or the whole city will be bombed. That way, the people would have 48 hours to do the right thing or leave before the bombing started.
[click to continue…]
I’m now more determined than ever to leave BlogSpot. All of my old permalinks don’t work anymore. The permalink feature still works, but the archive path name somehow changed. That means if you ever (since November 2003?) linked to particular posts, those links don’t work anymore. If you have the time and/or inclination, you can re-link to a post.
I think I’ll moved into my new TypePad home sooner rather than later.
Columnist Clarence Page, who has been described as a “black conservative”, buys into John Kerry’s “I like black folks!” persona:
Kerry has been to dozens of black churches and black-oriented events on the campaign trail and it showed, particularly on what I call the obligatory litmus-test bromides of black Democrats: He unequivocally supported the “Mend it, don’t end it” approach to affirmative action that was advocated by President Bill Clinton. He criticized President George W. Bush’s judicial appointments. He noted that his own campaign staff has had the largest black staffing, 17 percent, of any presidential campaign this year except maybe the Rev. Al Sharpton’s.
So pandering to blacks is the measure of man, is it? Well somebody ought to tell Kerry that he has an “inner circle” problem.
[click to continue…]
by La Shawn on April 15, 2004
in Bloggers
Christian Carnival is a showcase for Christian bloggers. It’s hosted this week by GodBlog.com.
Liberal Radio Is Silenced!
Is Air America off the air? For good?
After just two weeks of broadcasting, Air America Radio, the fledgling liberal talk-radio network featuring Al Franken and Janeane Garofalo, was pulled off the air this morning in Chicago and Los Angeles, the network’s second- and third-largest markets, in a dispute over payments for airtime.
They can’t pay their bills. I wonder why? No revenue!
To make an effort to be “fair and balanced”, I’ve linked to Air America Radio’s response. They claim to have stopped payment on a check because of a dispute with a broadcasting company, and added, “And if we ever get low on cash, we can always call Barbra Streisand. Or any of the Baldwins. Except Stephen.” I guess that’s supposed to be funny. Ha, ha, ha.
Market forces are a scary thing for this bunch. Are they creepy or what? Has anyone here listened to that show? Is it as bad as people say?
The other day I wrote, “I’m tired of dealing with liberals. I’m seriously thinking of moving to an area teeming with conservatives. Such a place exists doesn’t it?”
Commenters have suggested Idaho, southwestern Ohio, Texas, Oklahoma, any-place-outside Philly in Pennsylvania, Colorado, San Diego, Arizona and the White House. Doc Rampage has an unusual suggestion: “Why La Shawn should move to San Francisco.” I think he wants me out there because he doesn’t want to be the token conservative anymore.
I’m a totally biased conservative!
If anyone who listened to the reporters’ questions to President Bush last night and still doubts the existence of a liberal media bias, they are willfully ignorant.
A reporter asked the president if he felt personally responsible for the attacks on September 11. Can you believe it? President Bush said:
“Here’s what I feel about that: The person responsible for the attacks was Osama bin Laden. That’s who’s responsible for killing Americans. And that’s why we will stay on the offense until we bring people to justice.”
The answer was OK but it was not forceful enough for me. I don’t think it’s wrong for our leader to show a little anger toward the questioner. Bush should’ve said:
“I am one man in an administration of people whose job it is to lead and protect this country. Before I came to office, our military had been seriously undermined and weakened to the point of neglect. But you’re going to get on national TV and ask me if I feel personally responsible for the attacks of Muslim fanatics? Let me ask you a question. Do you feel a sense of personal responsibility for undermining our troops and aiding the enemy with biased news stories against our efforts in Iraq? Next question.”
That’s why I’d never be president.
A reporter asked, “[I] just wonder if you feel that you have failed in any way. You don’t have many of these press conferences where you engage in this kind of exchange. Have you failed in any way to really make the case to the American public?”
President Bush should’ve said: “I believe I’ve made my case to the American people, who overwhelmingly support this war. I think you meant to ask if I’d made my case to the editorial board of the New York Times. The answer to that question is obviously ‘No.’ But my mission is to protect our homeland, not to sell my war strategy to the media. Next question.”
The only “forceful” response President Bush gave was when he made an indirect reference to John Kerry after a reporter implied that he avoided debates.
“I look forward to the debate in the campaign. I look forward to helping — for the American people to hear, you know, what is the proper use of American power. Do we have an obligation to lead, or should we shirk responsibility? That’s how I view this debate.” The president implied that Democrats want us to cut and run. He should’ve said:
“Democrats want us to cut and run. I’m not a Democrat. Next question.”
That’s my “analysis.”
See Baldilocks’ analysis. Funny.
Here’s the text of his speech.
OK, no takers on the “Old Men” challenge.
Kudos to Dennis Prager for once again writing a cogent, incisive piece about the phoniness of white liberals in “Bob Kerrey clarifies the liberal view of blacks and women.”
“[M]any liberals and most Democratic leaders do not take blacks and women as seriously as they take whites and men. Blacks and women are regarded more as symbols — of American and male oppression — than as real people. Also, whereas a white liberal regards a white male as an individual, the white liberal is more likely to regard blacks and women as groups rather than as individuals. And, of course, they are seen as indispensable votes.
In their hearts, many Americans on the left do regard blacks as somewhat inferior, meaning, in other words, that they harbor racist views. That is the only explanation for the nearly universal leftist belief that all whites are racist, a libel that your child has probably been taught at college in some diversity or racial sensitivity seminar…
It is probable that belief in black inferiority, or at least in black differentness, also helps to explain white liberal support for the lowering of standards for blacks, i.e., affirmative action and quotas. Conservatives believe that no changing of standards is necessary in order for blacks to succeed.
I’m tired of dealing with liberals. I’m seriously thinking of moving to an area teeming with conservatives. Such a place exists doesn’t it?
Also see “Blacks need to rethink support for Democrats.”
by La Shawn on April 13, 2004
in General
I deliberately waited to see what would would happen after Sen. Chris Dodd’s remarks about Sen. Robert Byrd before blogging about it. As I suspected, not much happened.
It’s been 13 days since Dodd made remarks much more racially insensitive than anything Trent Lott ever said. Where is the liberal outrage and indignation of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC)?
Let’s recap:
Date: April 1, 2004
Occasion: Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va) receives a standing ovation on the Senate floor for casting his 17,000th role call vote.
Remark: On taxpayer-funded time, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn) said, “I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia that he would have been a great senator at any moment. Some were right for the time. Robert C. Byrd, in my view, would have been right at any time. He would have been right at the founding of this country. He would have been in the leadership crafting this Constitution. He would have been right during the great conflict of Civil War in this nation.” [emphasis mine]
[click to continue…]
Just think of the benefits that would flow from having a “Crossfire” sort of layout in the Chicago Tribune or Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
On one page, someone like Dawn Turner Trice could offer her view from the left, and on the next page, someone like myself could offer my view from the right. After reading both columns, people might come away with a balanced view of the issues instead of being fed the same old liberal gruel.
Trice apparently received a lot of feedback from last week’s column (I wonder if she read my “letter”?) and either misunderstood her black conservative detractors or conveniently misrepresented their responses. That’s my best guess, anyway.
I need Alka Seltzer after reading columns like hers and Cynthia Tucker’s. There are people out there who really believe all blacks think like these women, and I’m embarrassed by that. Just venting.
I haven’t blogged about the war in Iraq before because I wanted to get my thoughts together. As a preliminary note, I do believe this is a religious war, whether the United States believes so or not.
While reading and writing a review for The Crisis of Islam almost a year ago, I gained a better understanding of Islam’s view of the West.
When the Ayatollah Khomeini first referred to the United States as “The Great Satan” at the time of the Iranian Revolution in 1979, he wanted to invoke the image of the Seducer, the Liar of all liars. According to the Koran, Satan is “an insidious tempter who whispers in the hearts of men.” To Muslims, America is not a superpower to be feared, but a deceiver to be obliterated….
A Middle East expert, Lewis proffers that Americans are puzzled by this venomous sentiment because their general level of historical knowledge is “abysmally low.” Muslims, however, are defined by their history: who they are, where they came from, and what they perceive as God’s purpose for their lives.
“For [Osama] bin Laden, his declaration of war against the United States marks the resumption of the struggle for religious dominance of the world that began in the seventh century,” Lewis writes.
For example, to the Middle East, President Bush is just a successor in a long line of rulers — from the Byzantine emperors of Constantinople, the Holy Roman Emperors in Vienna, Queen Victoria, and other European imperialists — who are serious impediments to the divinely ordained expansion of Islam, merely delaying its inevitable conquest.
Without understanding how important history is to followers of Islam and how important it should be to Americans, the confusion will continue.
I didn’t have a blog last October when liberals and Muslims were in an uproar over Army Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin for saying, “We in the army of God, in the house of God, kingdom of God have been raised for such a time as this,” according to the Los Angeles Times.
[click to continue…]
by La Shawn on April 11, 2004
in Faith
“Remember how He spoke to you when He was still in Galilee, saying, ‘The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.’” And they remembered His words. (Luke 24:6-8)
To an unbelieving world, the saving power of the cross of Jesus Christ is foolishness; but for those who’ve been saved by His grace, it is the power of the living God! That saving power comes through the bodily resurrection of Christ.
The foundation of Christianity rises or falls on the truthfulness of the claim that Jesus rose from the dead. His death on the cross is the basis for salvation and the power of the resurrected Christ lives in all believers. He’s sitting at the right hand of God as our High Priest, making intercession on our behalf.
In Matthew 20, Jesus predicts his own death:
Now as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples aside and said to them, “We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn Him to death and will turn Him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. On the third day He will be raised to life!” (17-19)
To an unbelieving world, this is utter nonsense. But what faith is this if the claim is untrue? The apostle Paul tells us in his first letter to the Corinthian church. Although they’d been taught about the bodily resurrection of believers, some of the Christians in Corinth, influenced by the pagan culture and the Sadducees (both of whom didn’t believe in resurrection of the dead), were confused about their own resurrection.
Paul wrote:
“Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up — if in fact the dead do not rise. For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! (1 Corinthians 15:12-17).
So why was Christ’s death necessary in the first place? In Genesis 3, we read that man became separated from God when Adam and Eve disobeyed Him and ate the forbidden fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Consequently, every human inherited Adam’s sinful nature. That sinful nature separates us from God and affects every part of us. The Bible describes us as spiritually dead and unable to do anything to save ourselves.
Just as Lazarus was physically dead in his tomb, we are spiritually dead in our sins. But when the sovereign hand of God quickens us alive, we rise as Lazarus rose when Jesus said, “Lazarus, come forth!” Before He commanded Lazarus to rise, Jesus comforted his sister Martha: “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?” (John 11:25-26).
Yes I do!
But unbelievers laugh at our faith and make a mockery of it. Though they mock, they seem to inherently know they’ll have to answer to “someone” for the “bad” things they’ve done. So they come up with their own salvation plan, believing the “good” they do will outweigh the bad. What they don’t realize is that one sin is enough to put us under God’s wrath, and we all know our sins are innumerable. While we may forget, He knows about every single sinful thing we’ve ever done. There is no way for us to satisfy His righteous standard: perfection. But God has provided a way for us to “get around” His impossibly high standard: Jesus Christ. He stands in the place of believers, receiving the due penalty of our sins. Christ suffered the wrath of the Father so we wouldn’t have to!
The death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ sets us free from the penalty of sin by grace alone through faith in Jesus Christ alone. Salvation comes through the person and work of Jesus Christ, who is the very Son of God in human flesh.
Think about it.
