2/28/2005
Oscar’s Used To Get Back At Red States
Not that it was a big surprise, but it seemed like the red carpet crowd decided to use last night to get even with those who re-elected George Bush. They did it not by chiding those of us in the red states, but to do or say anything and everything they could to offend us.
Chris rock, in his opening monolog beat on George Bush and salted his language with expletives that would have — in another time — been bleeped out. He — as La Shawn Barber said — “played to the stereotype of the ignorant Negro in a monkey suit, loud and obnoxious, profanity spewing out of his mouth”. Adam Sandler and Chris Rock tag teamed one of the show’s raunchier moments, and Robin Williams took some time out to bash Christians who see cartoon characters as homosexual.
It seems impossible for Hollywood to throw any sort of award ceremony without beating up on middle America or Republicans. What a shame, the result of that is that they progress further and further from their audience. Nationally, the Oscar viewership was down 6% from last year which at the time was a new all time low.
2/27/2005
I had given up trying to combat or understand Reggie Rivers’ logic, but there is a time when one must answer the call. In his latest column, Reggie defends the infamous Ward Churchill at the expense of the taxpayers of Colorado. So, I’ve decided, in self defense, this column must be dissected. The arguments used by Mr. Rivers will be proven to be the pipe dreams of a limousine lefty.
But many Coloradans, including Gov. Bill Owens, believe that our nation is so fragile that the words of Ward Churchill literally have the power to destroy us. Owens said recently, “Churchill has clearly called for violence against the state, and no country is required to subsidize its own destruction. That’s what we’re doing with Ward Churchill.”
One only has to go as far as the second paragraph to find the first load of nonsense. This nation is not fragile, we will not be broken by the words of Ward Churchill or anyone else. When Governor Owens made his remarks, he simply meant that the state shouldn’t have to subsidize his brand of hatred.
This fear has been repeated on talk radio and on the streets by people who sound extremely agitated and fearful that Churchill’s words are effective. Generally, I don’t think it’s fair to cherry-pick small quotes from someone’s statements and act as if that represents their complete thoughts on an issue, but since that’s exactly what Churchill’s detractors are doing, it seems fair to wonder what people mean by “destruction.
As far as I can tell, no one has “cherry picked” small quotes from his statements. As near as I can tell the quote in question was virtually a summary of the entire essay. Just to refresh our memories though, here is the quote in question:
That they waited so long to do so is, notwithstanding the 1993 action at the WTC, more than anything a testament to their patience and restraint.
They did not license themselves to “target innocent civilians.”
There is simply no argument to be made that the Pentagon personnel killed on September 11 fill that bill. The building and those inside comprised military targets, pure and simple. As to those in the World Trade Center . . .
Well, really. Let’s get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America’s global financial empire – the “mighty engine of profit” to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved – and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to “ignorance” – a derivative, after all, of the word “ignore” – counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in – and in many cases excelling at – it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I’d really be interested in hearing about it.
Mr. Churchill has many other essays out there blaming the US government for everything from 9-11 to the 1837 smallpox outbreak. So, he’s made his opinion of the country he lives in abundantly clear.
Words are powerful. The childhood retort, “Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me,” isn’t entirely true, because words can do great harm - but only when they’re targeted at a particular person or a particular group, or if they slander, libel or incite immediate violence.
So, let me see if I understand this. Calling the victims of 9-11 “Little Eichmans” wasn’t libel or slander? If, we can agree that calling the victims of 9-11 “Little Eichmans” was slanderous, then didn’t Churchill’s words, by Reggie’s own definition, do great harm ?
But words that are aimed at an entire nation or at past events are only harmful if they’re tied to an action. As a professor, historian and commentator, Churchill makes observations based on research and his own biases. Sometimes he’s right, sometimes he’s wrong, but he’s just one source of information. There’s no need to silence him, because there are many other sources
Based on what I’ve read, I think Mr. Churchill’s observations are based on his own biases more than research. As far as not silencing him because there are other sources, that makes as much sense as saying “we shouldn’t silence Usama Bin Laden because there are other terrorists”.
Churchill’s accusers seem to be most concerned about his words that are aimed at the future. They say Churchill wants to destroy the United States and, apparently, they believe that he has the power to do so. They believe that if the taxpayers continue to finance him, we will be destroyed.
Once again Mr Churchill doesn’t have the power to destroy the United States, however, due to the media coverage of his remarks, he does have the power to encourage our enemies. The taxpayers of Colorado choose to not subsidize this brand of hatred.
If Churchill actually has this power, it isn’t apparent. Unless I missed something, he hasn’t been accused of committing acts of violence. In fact, when he was arrested with dozens of other protesters at last year’s Columbus Day Parade, he was committing nonviolent civil disobedience. And, as far as we can tell, his words haven’t inspired anyone else to commit violence, either.
When Mr. Churchill was arrested, he was blocking a city street. One that had been set aside, by a lawfully obtained permit, for the parade.
No one is talking about charging Churchill with a crime. His accusers just want to see him fired from his job at CU. Isn’t that interesting? Here’s a guy who the governor and countless others honestly believe is in the process of destroying us, yet they don’t want him to be arrested or thrown in jail. They merely want to kick him off the state payrolls so that we don’t have to finance our own destruction.
Whether or not Mr. Churchill should be charged with a crime is irrelevant to whether or not he should keep his job (I think there could be a case made for treason). Once again, just in case I haven’t made it clear yet, the taxpayers of Colorado do not want to pay him to spout his brand of hatred.
We need to remember that we’re not defined by our population, our landmass, our military, our leaders or our critics. We’re defined by our ideas. We hold dear the idea that people should be free to think and speak without fear of state retribution. When we lose sight of our ideals and start to persecute people because they say objectionable things, that’s the moment at which we’re financing our own destruction.
Ok here’s the deal, Mr. Churchill is free to think or say whatever he wants, but like anyone else there are consequences for saying things in public. Mr. Churchill is not facing state retribution, no one is threatening to put him in jail. We’ve just decided that if he is going to say these things, to teach our children these things, we don’t want him in our employ.
What aggravates me the most about Mr. Rivers column is that it never once addresses the multiple charges of fraud that have been leveled against Mr. Churchill. As far as I’m concerned these charges are just as bad as his comments regarding the victims of 9-11. Mr. Rivers chooses to cover the straw man argument rather than the true problem with Churchill. That’s ok though, we handily refuted those arguments as well.
2/26/2005
What’s the difference between readers of a newspaper and bloggers? Simple, bloggers are readers with a voice that the paper can’t control. Patterico from Oh, That Liberal Media makes that point in his post with the same title as mine. Here’s some of the material from a great and extensive look at an attitude in the MSM that would make any customer service manager worth his salt cringe:
Let’s play a game: pick a recent quote from a mainstream media representative that is dismissive of bloggers. (There are plenty out there, so it shouldn’t be hard to find one.) Take my suggestion and substitute the word “reader” for “blogger” and see how the quote sounds.
I’ll start by altering a recent quote from David Shaw of the L.A. Times. I am changing one word, substituting “readers” for “bloggers”:
But some readers are just self-important ranters who seem to wake up every morning convinced that the entire Free World awaits their opinions on any subject that’s popped into their heads . . .
Doesn’t that sound just a little bit jarring? Shaw probably would not have made this statement about readers. But why not? The altered quote is certainly a true statement — just as Shaw’s actual statement about bloggers was true. But either quote is also wildly unrepresentative of the group as a whole.
In any business other than the MSM, if management found out an employee talking about their customers this way in public, that employee would be on the unemployment line by the end of the day.
Top Ten Indicators Your Left Of Liberal
I found this at Rightwing News:
10. You never could throw your full support behind John Kerry once you found out his first name is found in the Bible, of all places.
9. One of the few reasons you couldn’t bring yourself to assasinate the president is you’d have to actually buy a gun.
8. Your opinions and values carry more weight than those that oppose you, because you care.
7. To save money you bought an effigy of Bush made of asbestos. You later returned it when you realized ‘the bush burned with fire, but the bush was not consumed.’ is ALSO found in the Bible.
6. You believe the death penalty should be abolished…after it’s applied to those that support it.
5. You believe that any news service that doesn’t keep ‘Bush is EV1L Incarnate’ as its lead story is undeniably linked to a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
4. Four years later and you are STILL protesting outside the Broward County Courthouse for Gore-Lieberman 2000.
3. You have made a sign which you carry to every protest that just says ‘NO!’. It’s written in your own blood from when you carved ‘I’m Sorry, World’ on your forehead.
2. You acknowlege the ‘Vast Right Wing Conspiracy’ exists and is inherently evil but often lose sleep at night worrying there are smaller ‘Widespread Right Wing Conspiracies’ that need to be stamped out too and aren’t getting the attention they deserve.
And the number one Indicator You May Be Left of Liberal….
1. You strongly believe cannibalism is wrong. Not because it takes a human life but because it’s…meat.
2/24/2005
Rep. Bill Cadman ( R ) Colorado Springs made a fool of himself on Tuesday on the floor of the state house. Cadman told Rep. Val Vigil ( D ) of Thornton “If you try that again, I’ll ram my fist up your ass.”
What was all of this about? Well, it seems to me that Vigil tried to change a committee report on a piece of legislation by writing another amendment. Here are the details from the Rocky Mountain News.
Vigil, of Thornton, had introduced a bill that would allow the family of a soldier killed in action to use military license plates.
The bill was changed in committee to say that family members can get special license plates, but not the plates given to active military members or veterans.
When the bill reached the House floor Tuesday, Vigil offered an amendment that would change the bill to say that families could use the plates now reserved for soldiers and veterans.
Vigil said he was just correcting an oversight made by the committee.
But Cadman said Vigil tried to change the intent of the bill. “Val took it upon himself to change the committee’s report,” he said. “He wanted to let family members access all the license plates available to active duty members.”
In the eyes of Cadman, a veteran of the Army, making too many license plates available to too many family members would dilute the noteworthiness of the plates, which are to honor the veterans themselves.
[…] House Majority Leader Alice Madden, D-Boulder, Cadman shouted that Vigil’s amendment was “garbage.”
Vigil suggested that Cadman should know garbage.
Cadman was next to Vigil’s desk on the House floor when he made the comment about his fist.
While it looks like — according to the details in the Rocky — that Vigil tried to change the intent of the bill, and should be admonished for not only that but calling Rep. Cadman trash, we expect more of our elected officials. What both of these men did on Tuesday has brought dishonor on the state house. They should both publicly apologize for their actions and words, and we should get on with the business of the day.
As far as the bill, I agree with Rep. Cadman. I believe the parents, wives, and husbands of deceased service members should have a plate commemorating their loss. I also believe that it should be a plate separate from ones given to current service members and veterans.
From the LA times op-ed section today; should the US armed services recruit illegals in this country or foreigners from other countries? Well, on the surface, I would say that this is just to risky. In this modern war, we just don’t know who’s on our side. We’ve even got a couple of our soldiers that are up on treason charges right now. Remember the muslim “Chaplins” from guantanamo?
This is an anomaly by historical standards: In the 19th century, when the foreign-born population of the United States was much higher, so was the percentage of foreigners serving in the military. During the Civil War, at least 20% of Union soldiers were immigrants, and many of them had just stepped off the boat before donning a blue uniform. There were even entire units, like the 15th Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry (the Scandinavian Regiment) and Gen. Louis Blenker’s German Division, where English was hardly spoken.
The statistics he’s talking about were from a different time in our nation when we were fighting a very different enemy.
The military would do well today to open its ranks not only to legal immigrants but also to illegal ones and, as important, to untold numbers of young men and women who are not here now but would like to come. No doubt many would be willing to serve for some set period in return for one of the world’s most precious commodities — U.S. citizenship. Open up recruiting stations from Budapest to Bangkok, Cape Town to Cairo, Montreal to Mexico City. Some might deride those who sign up as mercenaries, but these troops would have significantly different motives than the usual soldier of fortune.
Once again, how do we know who’s on our side? Don’t you think that Al Queada would love to get their hands on US miltary technology? What could an Abrams tank do in the hands of someone as evil as Mohamed Atta? Or how about a M-16, grenades, and virtually unlimited ammunition in the hands of Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi? In the next passage the author of this piece names this possible unit of foreigners or illegals the Freedom Legion.
The Freedom Legion would be the perfect unit to employ in places such as Darfur that are not critical security concerns but that cry out for more effective humanitarian intervention than any international organization could muster. U.S. politicians, so wary (and rightly so) of casualties among U.S. citizens, might take a more lenient attitude toward the employment of a force not made up of their constituents. An added benefit is that by recruiting foreigners, the U.S. military could address its most pressing strategic deficit in the war on terrorism — lack of knowledge about other cultures. The most efficient way to expand the government’s c orps of Pashto or Arabic speakers isn’t to send native-born Americans to language schools; it’s to recruit native speakers of those languages.
No Darfur is not a critical concern, but what would happen if one or two of those in the unit sent to Darfur decided to slaughter the rest of the unit. Wouldn’t those who don’t like us love that kind of press? My point is that while this may look good on the surface to some people, we have to be very, very careful about what we do with our fighting force.
My friend and excellent blogger, Girl in Right is running for city council in Golden, Colorado. Please stop by her website and sign up to help her out. If you don’t live in Golden but know someone who does please pass this along. We need more people like her in office both here in Colorado and in D.C.
2/23/2005
Terri Schiavo has received a reprieve. A judge extended her stay until 5 pm Friday, and apparently the Department of Children and Families has decided to intervene. This is great news, it’s bought Terri two valuable days, and it’s apparent that we finally have a judge who cares looking into the situation.
2/22/2005
You think I’m talking about unborn babies? Well, not today. Today I’m talking about Terri Schiavo. A Florida court ruled today that the court ordered stay in the case be dropped. This means that Michael Schiavo (an evil man if I’ve ever seen one) could have his ex-wife’s feeding tube removed as early as this afternoon. Beyond the fact that there are some very valid questions about Michael’s involvement in his wifes condition, the Florida court has just sentenced an Innocent woman to a death so horrible that we don’t even use it on our most heinous criminals; starvation.
What do I know about feeding tubes and euthanasia? For one, I had a feeding tube. I also know what it’s like to be trapped in a body when nobody knows if your there or not mentally. I can’t imagine being starved to death via feeding tube and not being able to let anyone know you want to live.
What was this womans crime? What did she do to deserve death by starvation? She’s disabled. She can’t speak for herself. Her ex-husband Michael says she told him that she didn’t want to live like “this”, but there is no written record of her saying this. Her parents never heard it, she never put it in writing, her ex-husband –who now has a new girlfriend and stands to inherit a sum of money– is the only one who ever heard her say this (if indeed she did say it).
What to do? I’m not sure there’s anything we can do. I plan on making my voice heard. I will call my congressman, I will call the Florida Governors office, and I will continue to speak out about Terri’s fight until the day she dies.
What can our government do about it? They can start by saying this is unconstitutional to kill an innocent person. They can stop it on the grounds that it is cruel and unusual punishment. They can stop it by looking into the circumstances surrounding her injury and postponing the removal of the feeding tube until the questions surrounding her injury are answered.
Anyway you look at this, removing her feeding tube is a horrible thing to do. It cannot be allowed to happen.
Nah, there’s no way that Hillary Clinton is taking the same line on Iraq as the administration. Or maybe she’s just trying the failed tactic of campaigning to the right and governing to the left. Either way, don’t be fooled by what your about to read. It isn’t how she really feels about things.
Clinton and McCain previously criticized the Pentagon’s planning and execution of the Iraq effort. Now Clinton says a deadline for withdrawal would strengthen the hand of the insurgents who are conducting daily attacks.
Or there’s this one where she says that the insurgency has failed and much of Iraq is functioning well. Once again, keep in mind that this is all for political expediency.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said that much of Iraq was “functioning quite well” and that the rash of suicide attacks was a sign that the insurgency was failing.
Clinton, a New York Democrat, said insurgents intent on destabilizing the country had failed to disrupt Iraq’s landmark Jan. 30 elections.
“The concerted effort to disrupt the elections was an abject failure. Not one polling place was shut down or overrun,” Clinton told reporters inside the U.S.-protected Green Zone, a sprawling complex of sandbagged buildings surrounded by blast walls and tanks. The zone is home to the Iraqi government and the U.S. Embassy.
It really disgusts me to see a Senator (regardless of party) playing politics with the war and or the outcome of the war.
Hat Tip: American Kestrel
2/21/2005
All Worked Up Over The Wrong Stuff
One of my biggest objections to those on the left is that they always seem to get worked up about the wrong stuff. This quote from jonah goldberg sums it up perfectly.
“When Howard Dean was still on top of the world looking down on the Democratic presidential nomination, the indispensable columnist Mark Steyn…dubbed the good doctor the figurehead of the ‘bike path left.’ This was a reference to Dean’s decision to leave the Episcopalian Church because his parish had opposed his plan to build a local bike path. As Steyn noted, what made this controversy remarkable, considering the recent dust-ups within the Anglican community, was that this was not in fact a gay bike path, nor a path one biked on the way to a gay marriage. No, this was just an ordinary bike path, and…[i]t was just, in Dean’s words, a ‘big fight.’ ‘I was fighting to have public access to the waterfront, and we were fighting very hard.’ Steyn contrasted Dean’s readiness to rumble about a bike path with his more leisurely attitude toward war. When Saddam was captured, Dean had said, ‘I suppose that’s a good thing.’ When the butchers Uday and Qusay were killed in a raid, Dean said, ‘The ends don’t justify the means.’ About Osama bin Laden, Dean explained in 2003, ‘I don’t think it makes a lot of difference’ if he’s tried in the Hague or in the place where he orchestrated the murder of thousands of Americans. Asked if the Hague would be good for Saddam, too, Dean airily replied, ‘Suits me fine.’ In short, about the war on terror Dean was dismissively blasè. About bike paths he was a pit bull.” –Jonah Goldberg
He’ll fight tooth and nail for a bike path but as for the war on terror — the very survival of our nation — he is “dismissively blase”. Does anyone else see the problem with this?
2/17/2005
Peggy Noonan In Defense Of The Blogs
Peggy Noonan has written a great piece in defense of the blogosphere. Here are the key graphs.
“Salivating morons.” “Scalp hunters.” “Moon howlers.” “Trophy hunters.” “Sons of Sen. McCarthy.” “Rabid.” “Blogswarm.” “These pseudo-journalist lynch mob people.”
This is excellent invective. It must come from bloggers. But wait, it was the mainstream media and their maidservants in the elite journalism reviews, and they were talking about bloggers!
Those MSMers have gone wild, I tell you! The tendentious language, the low insults. It’s the Wild Wild West out there. We may have to consider legislation.
[…] The blogosphere isn’t some mindless eruption of wild opinion. That isn’t their power. This is their power:
1. They use the tools of journalists (computer, keyboard, a spirit of inquiry, a willingness to ask the question) and of the Internet (Google, LexisNexis) to look for and find facts that have been overlooked, ignored or hidden. They look for the telling quote, the ignored statistic, the data that have been submerged. What they are looking for is information that is true. When they get it they post it and include it in the debate. This is a public service.
2. Bloggers, unlike reporters at elite newspapers and magazines, are independent operators. They are not, and do not have to be, governed by mainstream thinking. Nor do they have to accept the directives of an editor pushing an ideology or a publisher protecting his friends. Bloggers have the freedom to decide on their own when a story stops being a story. They get to decide when the search for facts is over. They also decide on their own when the search for facts begins. It was a blogger at the World Economic Forum, as we all know, who first reported the Eason Jordan story. It was bloggers, as we all know, who pursued it. Matt Drudge runs a news site and is not a blogger, but what was true of him at his beginning (the Monica Lewinsky story, he decided, is a story) is true of bloggers: It’s a story if they say it is. This is a public service.
3. Bloggers have an institutional advantage in terms of technology and form. They can post immediately. The items they post can be as long or short as they judge to be necessary. Breaking news can be one sentence long: “Malkin gets Barney Frank earwitness report.” In newspapers you have to go to the editor, explain to him why the paper should have another piece on the Eason Jordan affair, spend a day reporting it, only to find that all that’s new today is that reporter Michelle Malkin got an interview with Barney Frank. That’s not enough to merit 10 inches of newspaper space, so the Times doesn’t carry what the blogosphere had 24 hours ago. In the old days a lot of interesting information fell off the editing desk in this way. Now it doesn’t. This is a public service.
4. Bloggers are also selling the smartest take on a story. They’re selling an original insight, a new area of inquiry. Mickey Kaus of Kausfiles has his bright take, Andrew Sullivan had his, InstaPundit has his. They’re all selling their shrewdness, experience, depth. This too is a public service.
5. And they’re doing it free. That is, the Times costs me a dollar and so does the Journal, but Kausfiles doesn’t cost a dime. This too is a public service. Some blogs get their money from yearly fund-raising, some from advertisers, some from a combination, some from a salary provided by Slate or National Review. Most are labors of love. Some bloggers–a lot, I think–are addicted to digging, posting, coming up with the bright phrase. OK with me. Some get burned out. But new ones are always coming up, so many that I can’t keep track of them and neither can anyone else.
But when I read blogs, when I wake up in the morning and go to About Last Night and Lucianne and Lileks, I remember what the late great Christopher Reeve said on “The Tonight Show” 20 years ago. He was the second guest, after Rodney Dangerfield. Dangerfield did his act and he was hot as a pistol. Then after Reeve sat down Dangerfield continued to be riotous. Reeve looked at him, gestured toward him, looked at the audience and said with grace and delight, “Do you believe this is free?” The audience cheered. That’s how I feel on their best days when I read blogs.
That you get it free doesn’t mean commerce isn’t involved, for it is. It is intellectual commerce. Bloggers give you information and point of view. In return you give them your attention and intellectual energy. They gain influence by drawing your eyes; you gain information by lending your eyes. They become well-known and influential; you become entertained or informed. They get something from it and so do you.
6. It is not true that there are no controls. It is not true that the blogosphere is the Wild West. What governs members of the blogosphere is what governs to some degree members of the MSM, and that is the desire for status and respect. In the blogosphere you lose both if you put forward as fact information that is incorrect, specious or cooked. You lose status and respect if your take on a story that is patently stupid. You lose status and respect if you are unprofessional or deliberately misleading. And once you’ve lost a sufficient amount of status and respect, none of the other bloggers link to you anymore or raise your name in their arguments. And you’re over. The great correcting mechanism for people on the Web is people on the Web.
There are blogs that carry political and ideological agendas. But everyone is on to them and it’s mostly not obnoxious because their agendas are mostly declared.
7. I don’t know if the blogosphere is rougher in the ferocity of its personal attacks than, say, Drew Pierson. Or the rough boys and girls of the great American editorial pages of the 1930s and ’40s. Bloggers are certainly not as rough as the splenetic pamphleteers of the 18th and 19th centuries, who amused themselves accusing Thomas Jefferson of sexual perfidy and Andrew Jackson of having married a whore. I don’t know how Walter Lippman or Scotty Reston would have seen the blogosphere; it might have frightened them if they’d lived to see it. They might have been impressed by the sheer digging that goes on there. I have seen friends savaged by blogs and winced for them–but, well, too bad. I’ve been attacked. Too bad. If you can’t take it, you shouldn’t be thinking aloud for a living. The blogosphere is tough. But are personal attacks worth it if what we get in return is a whole new media form that can add to the true-information flow while correcting the biases and lapses of the mainstream media? Yes. Of course.
She then finishes her piece by offering up some predictions for the blogosphere in the next year. I don’t usually do predictions, but I will say this; we will remain a force to be reckoned with for a long time to come.
2/12/2005
Ahh, the New York Times I’ve come to know and love. Wildly anti-American and decidedly left of center. In his latest screed Bob Herbert takes the administration to task for a program written about in New Yorker Magazine — a left wing rag if ever there was one. According to Herbert and Mayer “Extraordinary rendition” is a program where suspected terrorists are sent to countries that have no qualms about torture to be…. well…. questioned. This program has supposedly been named “extraordinary rendition” by the CIA. Of course, as far as I can tell, there is no concrete proof that this program exists. I googled “extraordinary rendition” and all mentions of the program were by either left of center journalists or un named sources inside the justice department or CIA. Call me skeptical, but I don’t trust un named sources as concrete proof that a program that makes no sense exists.
Why does it not make any sense? Well for one, the countries that these captives were supposedly sent to are ideologically on the same side as the “terrorists” that were sent there to be tortured. Here’s the list:
2/10/2005
Fox News Channel is one of the first MSM bigs to cover Eason’s Fables. Here’s part of an exchange between Krauthammer and Kondracke regarding Eason’s Fables:
KRAUTHAMMER: …the crime here I think is intellectual cowardice on the part of Eason Jordan. I mean, if he said this and then he tried to walk it back, he wasn’t trying to explain it, he was trying to undo it. But then he says in a statement that has been released, he never has believed that American troops have deliberately attacked journalists. Well, if he doesn’t, why is he spreading a rumor that he believes is false, malicious, libelous, and will endanger American troops? I mean, you don’t truck in rumors like that. He essentially says, now he was just reporting what others are saying. If he thinks it’s a falsehood, why is he repeating it? So I think that is the real problem here, and I think as Mort indicated, he did, he’s admitted that in the past he’s sort of covered up and suppressed news in Iraq because he didn’t want to, say, endanger his employees. Well, if you’re going to give our news shaded by Saddam Hussein and essentially censored, you ought to either get out of Iraq, or say it openly on the air: the news you are now hearing is approved by this regime, so everybody will know it’s not honest news. There’s dishonesty here which I think is the real problem.
KONDRACKE: I mean, he is the news director of CNN, and it also raises questions about whether this is an attitude that informs all the reporting of CNN…
Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin
North Korea Admits Having Nukes
North Korea admitted publicly for the first time that they have built nuclear weapons. In a statement that could only come out from someone like Kim Jong Il, the North Koreans said:
“We … have manufactured nukes for self-defense to cope with the Bush administration’s evermore undisguised policy to isolate and stifle the (North)”
It said Washington’s alleged attempt to topple the North’s regime “compels us to take a measure to bolster its nuclear weapons arsenal in order to protect the ideology, system, freedom and democracy chosen by its people.” [Emphasis Mine — Jim C]
Bolster it’s arsenal to protect the freedom and democracy chosen by it’s people. Freedom and democracy? In North Korea? I think it’s high time for us to do something about the North Koreans other than talk. Unfortunately because of the mistakes of both Carter and Clinton, it’ll be real hard to do without it turning bloody.
Hat Tip: Captains Quarters
2/9/2005
Are Mainstream Democrats Unhappy With The Direction Of Their Party?
Joe Klein, who’s no Republican, has written a scathing column this week criticizing the Democrats for their performance at the last State of the Union. I was very surprised at the content of the column and that got me wondering whether or not mainstream Dems are fed up with the churlishness of the Washington Dems. From Kleins column:
Mara Liasson has shown just how out of touch the MSM and the Democratic party are concerning the will of the people. Here’s a quote from Brent Bozell’s news column regarding Howard Dean’s inevitable crowning as head of the DNC.
Even now, as the Democrats prepare to crown Dean their leader, NPR reporter Mara Liasson persisted in the myth-making, claiming that, while Dean is “identified” with the anti-war left, “his record on issues other than foreign policy is not left of center. He is actually a staunch centrist, pragmatic, reform Democrat who is pro-gun rights, comes from a rural state, and he’s a deficit hawk.”
Liasson apparently forgot how Gov. Dean signed a bill in 2000 installing “civil unions” for gay men and lesbians. (Was that “centrist and pragmatic”?) And failed to remember how Dean drew raves at a NARAL dinner in 2003 for insisting that partial-birth abortion was “an issue about nothing. It’s an issue about [pro-life] extremism.” He proposed repealing the Bush tax cuts to fund more socialized-medicine schemes like Hillary Clinton’s. And it won’t help him with military families that he said about Saddam Hussein, on the April day Baghdad was liberated, “I suppose that’s a good thing.”
Bozell hits the nail on the head when, at the end of his column, he opines “It’s at moments like these where you can see the point where so-called “mainstream” media cluelessness might backfire and ultimately cement an era of Republican domination.”
2/8/2005
Go…. Leave, I’ll Buy the Ticket
Rick Lyman tells us about several people who are going through with their plans to move to Canada. Does this bother you? What do I think about the whole thing? Let the spoiled ingrates go to Canada, when they get their first case of strep throat and have to wait months to see a doctor we can ask them again how great their utopia is. Here is a sample of the brain power were sending away to the great white north.
A former civil rights marcher and antiwar protester, Mr. Gorde said he built his company in Virginia because the state was not one of America’s liberal enclaves, hoping to spread progressive ideas in the heart of conservatism. He was once named the state’s entrepreneur of the year.
“I think George Bush’s re-election, in itself, is nothing compared to what happens, over the next 10 to 15 years, if he gets to make three or four appointments to the Supreme Court,” Mr. Gorde said. “I foresee a much darker period in front of us.”
Beginning now, Mr. Gorde plans to gradually shift his life from Richmond to one of the islands near Vancouver - buying a home, spending a little more time there each year, gradually extracting himself from his company in Virginia until, 100 months from now, his life will be Canadian.
Now, why do you think he’s waiting 100 months to start living there full time? Could it be…..money? Mr. Gorde, this liberal pansy ingrate that can’t seem to handle the results of a fair election is probably waiting the better part of 10 years so that he can finish of his retirement fat and happy in Canada.
Good bye Mr. Gorde, I’m sure you’ll be missed by someone.
2/7/2005
Bob Herbert of the New York Times has once again proven himself to be an inept defender of our worst enemies. In his column today, he takes on the administration over alleged abuses at Guantanamo Bay Cuba.
His primary source for this column is a British man who was allegedly abused while incarcerated.
During the whole time we were at Guantánamo,” said Shafiq Rasul, “we were at a high level of fear. When we first got there the level was sky-high. At the beginning we were terrified that we might be killed at any minute. The guards would say to us, ‘We could kill you at any time.’ They would say, ‘The world doesn’t know you’re here. Nobody knows you’re here. All they know is that you’re missing, and we could kill you and no one would know.’ “
We, of course, don’t know if what Mr. Rasul is saying is true or not because there is no proof offered. In fact, Mr. Herbert doesn’t explore the Governments position at all. One of his next statements covers some more serious allegations, although I’m not sure many of them rise to the level of abuse much less torture.
We know that people were kept in cells that in some cases were the equivalent of animal cages, and that some detainees, disoriented and despairing, have been shackled like slaves and left to soil themselves with their own urine and feces. Detainees are frequently kicked, punched, beaten and sexually humiliated. Extremely long periods of psychologically damaging isolation are routine.
We do, really? I know that I’ve been in the hospital a lot lately, and because of that haven’t had a chance to stay up on all the news. But, I don’t ever remember ever hearing any credible source talk about detainee’s being chained to a wall and left to soil themselves. I don’t remember anything about detainee’s being kicked and punched, and yes there were some instances of some pretty sick individuals sexually humiliating prisoners, but that was in Iraq. Even if it had happened here, it doesn’t rise to the level of torture. Mr. Herbert also speaks of long periods of isolation. He should try not being able to move while being on a ventilator for months as I and I’m sure some of our wounded soldiers have experienced.
This is all being done in the name of fighting terror. But the best evidence seems to show that many of the people rounded up and dumped without formal charges into Guantánamo had nothing to do with terror. They just happened to be unfortunate enough to get caught in one of Uncle Sam’s depressingly indiscriminate sweeps. Which is what happened to Shafiq Rasul, who was released from Guantánamo about a year ago. His story is instructive, and has not been told widely enough.
… Under extreme duress at Guantánamo, including hundreds of hours of interrogation and long periods of isolation, the three men confessed to having been in a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan. They also said they were among a number of men who could be seen in a videotape of Osama bin Laden. The tape had been made in August 2000. [Emphasis Mine — Jim C]
The three confessed to being at a terrorist training camp!!! At the time what was the government supposed to do, let them go?
The three men, all British citizens, were saved by British intelligence officials, who proved that they had been in England when the video was shot, and during the time they were supposed to have been in Al Qaeda training camps. All three were returned to England, where they were released from custody.
Saved by British intelligence officials. That’s a bit over dramatic isn’t it? Their lives were not in danger while at Guantanamo. And, the final insult:
The Bush administration has turned Guantánamo into a place that is devoid of due process and the rule of law. It’s a place where human beings can be imprisoned for life without being charged or tried, without ever seeing a lawyer, and without having their cases reviewed by a court. Congress and the courts should be uprooting this evil practice, but freedom and justice in the United States are on a post-9/11 downhill slide.
So we are stuck for the time being with the disgrace of Guantánamo, which will forever be a stain on the history of the United States, like the internment of the Japanese in World War II.
So we’ve now invoked the evil spectors of eroding freedoms and internment camps. To listen to Mr. Herbert, you’d think this was a scene straight out of “The Seige”. That’s just great. I can’t remember a time when the media has been this active in subversive activity.
2/6/2005
It looks like Time Magazine will have some good stuff this week about A.Q. Kahn and the developing mess in Iran. I hope to post some commentary on the futility of arguing and ultimately appeasing insane dictators, as well as stopping men such as Kahn from screwing up our world any more than it already is. Geesh, as if we didn’t have a big enough fight on our hands……
Unfortunately I don’t remember much about Ronald Reagan, other than his comforting a wounded nation after the Challenger tragedy. Most of what I’ve learned about that great man has come after his Presidency. Michelle Malkin has distinct memories of a State of the Union address in 1982. It’s amazing how men like Ronald Reagan can effect the lives of even small children.
Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin
Blogger Sissyphus hopes to have the WEF video of Eason Jordan slandering our military men and women sometime next week. That, I believe, will be the straw that broke the MSM blackout.
Hugh points out that this is about holding a MSM big accountable for his actions, and nothing more. He’s right. That, in large part, is what the new media is all about. We, as a group, have gotten tired of the left leaning bias of the MSM. We have decided to do something about it. Now, with instant publishing capability, and the ability to link to our sources, so that you — the reader — can decide for yourself, we can do something about it.
Think for a minute, how the election might have turned out if guys like Powerline, LGF, Captains Quarters, and the rest hadn’t been on the ball with the Rather Gate scandal. I think things would have turned out quite differently.
Hat Tip: La Shawn Barber
2/5/2005
In light of the recent madness surrounding Ward Churchill, this story from SCSU Scholars makes the Tin-foil hat madness displayed by Churchill and Nell seem like there’s a pattern developing in our institutions of higher learning.
Fighting Terrorism with Empathy: a Model for Peace
Amy Nell
Concordia College
The word terrorism strikes a deep nerve among Americans today–having sparked an entire nation to the defense of its country and the subjugation of those who stand in opposition. One of these men who stand in opposition is the man who planned the September 11 attacks. In November 2004, Osama Bin Laden released a tape giving his recipe for a healthy nation. This seminar would dissect his message and use audience participation in doing so. Discussion points would include counterterrorism methods, the possibility of peace, empathy etc. The aim of this seminar would be to help understand the position of Osama Bin Laden as presented in the video and explore in what ways the origins of terrorism are to be found, not in some foreign citizen, but in the actions we take out of fear, hate and retribution.
In an age where we are at war with Islamofacism, and loyalty to a country where you are a citizen is key for our survival, It really makes me angry to know that our tax dollars are going to pay idiots like Churchill and Nell.
As for Ward Churchill, many his defenders, in recent days, have commented that Churchill has a right to free speech. I agree completely. However, just like the rest of us, there are consequences for what he says. Mr. Churchill has expressed his views. Now, the regents, and more importantly, those of us who pay his salary, have decided that we don’t want him teaching our children anymore. It’s that simple.
2/3/2005
Noted liberal columnist for the WaPo Richard Cohen published a column today about Colorado’s (and CU’s) latest embarrassment; Ward Churchill. Unfortunately, in an otherwise innocuous column, he takes a swipe at Bill O’reilly and his viewers.
Then Bill O’Reilly struck. The Fox TV commentator went to town on the controversy, finding the usual liberal idiocy at the usual liberal college perpetrated by the usual liberal morons. Having rounded up his usual suspects, O’Reilly ended a segment about Hamilton by providing the name of the college’s president, Joan Hinde Stewart, her e-mail address and the school’s phone number. Then, blood dripping from his evil heart, he asked his deranged viewers to “keep your comments respectable.” [emphasis mine - Jim C]
Deranged viewers? I guess I’m supposed to fit into that category. Then again, I guess anyone who doesn’t watch CNN, ABC, CBS, PBS, and NBC for their nightly news would fit into that category. Methinks Mr. Cohen is the one who’s a little deranged. Now, if you’ll excuse me. I’m going back to watching the O’reilly factor.
2/2/2005
I think possibly the most moving moment of the night was the embrace between Mrs. Norwood and the woman from Iraq. The meaning of that moment will remain in my mind forever. It was also possibly clearest example of why we are there.
The President has sold me on his Social Security plan. That, despite what some might think, was not a given. As someone who is receiving (and depends on) Social Security disability, and also understands the danger of putting money in the market, I was a little concerned about the plan that I had heard. The financial reality though is that we must do something to stop the bleeding that is going on now. This means either a cut in benefits or a change to the system. I plan to go into the plan and the rest of the speech a little more in depth tomorrow.
Briefly, as for the remainder of the speech, it seemed to be a speech meant for the American public in that it wasn’t wonkish and filled with statistics and statements that Joe and Jane public would have a hard time understanding. The President set forth an aggressive domestic agenda, and put his nay sayers on notice regarding his foreign policy agenda as well.
John Kerry seems to have an odd knack for reminding us all why he lost the election. The interview really is almost comical to read, he almost seems to be flip-flopping with every sentence he speaks. Froggy Ruminations has a great take down of the entire thing, but here are some of the key graphs:
MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe this election will be seen by the world community as legitimate?
SEN. KERRY: A kind of legitimacy–I mean, it’s hard to say that something is legitimate when a whole portion of the country can’t vote and doesn’t vote. I think this election was important. I was for the election taking place. You may recall that back in–well, there’s no reason you would–but back in Fulton, Missouri, during the campaign, I laid out four steps, and I said at the time, “This may be the president’s last chance to get it right.”
Refresh my memory, was that the speech where you said you were for supporting our troops before you were against it? Or was that the time when you recommended that we begin pulling troops out of Iraq within six months and then said we didn’t have enough troops?
MR. RUSSERT: What specifically must President Bush do in your mind? Who should he call? Who should he meet with? What should he do?
SEN. KERRY: Well, you have to behave as if you really are at war.
Oh like when you go to Vietnam for four months, load up on bogus awards, and then return eight months early from your deployment so you can call your “band of brothers” the army of Ghengis Khan?
MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe that Iraq is less a terrorist threat to the United States now than it was two years ago?
SEN. KERRY: No, it’s more. And, in fact, I believe the world is less safe today than it was two and a half years ago. And, you know, I think this is one of the difficulties of what I tried to carry in the course of the campaign.
I couldn’t agree more. It is very difficult to convince the American people of something that is self evidently false. As a result you managed to “carry” your party and crybaby liberals around the world to the cliff of Bush hating insanity and then you all joined hands and jumped…
Hat Tip: Hugh
Of course, wouldn’t you know it. During one of the most important set of news cycles I can remember I’m in the hospital. The other gents in the RMA have picked up my slack though.
Iraq votes, Ward Churchill opens his big mouth, and GI Joe is kidnapped. These are just some of the things I have missed out on. I hope to get back up to speed today, and resume normal posting tomorrow.