Wednesday, December 28, 2005

MSM Fact-Checking? What MSM Fact-checking?

So the Los Angeles Times is the latest 'news' source to admit that their reporters apprently missed the class in journalism school about research and checking sources. According to, a story invented as an April Fool's joke ended up on the LA Times front page. However, the funniest part came a little later in ths story, when a red-faced editor admitted:

The reporter saw it on the Internet and had talked with the governor in the past, so she was familiar enough with the way he talks and writes that she thought it sounded authentic, and she didn't check, which she should have," Times Deputy Metro Editor David Lauter told the Casper Star Tribune.

What?! She 'saw it on the Internet'? And ;'she had talked with the governor in the past' so she 'was familiar enough with the way he talks and writes...' Heh. That sounds like unmitigated hubris to me. I have met and talked with a number of people in high positions, but a brief conversation does not an expert make me regarding their speech and writing styles. In addition, most reporters' interviews wwith politicians are extremely limited and I doubt that a minor LA reporter would be on close and personal terms with a governor- not even a fellow Democrat! And to claim that based on a brief acquaintance that she 'knew how he talked and wrote' is the height of arrogance. This is the kind of attitude that makes people distrust the media- their elitism and their know-it-all behavior. They are only ashamed because in this case, they were caught red-handed and the story was undoubtedly fake. They couldn't even trot out their 'fake-but-true' mantra in this case!

Remind me again about mainstream media 'professionalism'? I don't know any serious blogger who would have been caught that way. What were those qualifications that so-called 'professional journalists' are supposed to possess that bloggers don't again? *snicker*

Hat tip to Matt Drudge.

About Those Bush 'Lies'.....

The Chicago Tribune has taken a long-overdue look at the Bush-haters' claims that the president lied in order to bolster the case for war against Iraq. Despite the continued Bush Derangement Syndrome evident in most of the MSM, the Tribune decided to at last do a little actual journalism, and has found, in an editorial published today, that Bush DIDN'T lie!

Not to put too fine a point on this, but in light of the Tribune's reporting of this not-exactly-new information, maybe the main purveyor of falsehoods regarding Iraq (that would be the New York Times, for those of you scoring at home), might want to reconsider their relentless (and entirely untruthful) campaign againt the Bush Adminstration. Just asking, mind you. The main job of 'professional journalists' IS to perfrom accurate and impartial reporting, isn't it? And their mantra is that ever error will be corrected. Isn't it?

Tuesday, December 27, 2005

Eurpoean 'Tolerance'...

Europeans love to lecture to the United States about 'tolerance' toward others' viewpoints- especially viewpoints from enemies of the United States. However, it appears that they are not very good at practisiing what they preach.

According to, Arnold Schwarzenegger's hometown, the Austrian city of Graz has acquiesced to Schwarzenegger's wishes and has removed his name from a soccer stadium named in his honor. The city has also eliminated any reference to him on the city website, again in response to a request from Schwarzenegger.

This comes after many of the town's inhabitants savagely attacked Schwarzenegger for refusing to spare the life of Stanley 'Tookie' Williams, a convicted multiple murderer and the founder of the Los Angeles-area Crips street gang. The opposition to this richly-deserved execution had begun a movement to strip Scwarzenegger's name from the stadium, and the Governor chose to remove the temptation by writing to the city and formally severing ties. This included sending back an ornate ring the city had given him, as well as requesting the removal of his name from the stadium. Schwarzeneger's rationnale was simple- removing his name aand completely severing public ties with Graz would draw the fire of the anti-death penalty zealots, and would not place the elected officials of Graz (who mostly supported retaining Schwarzenegger's name on the stadium) in a difficult position. In my opinion, this was the only thing for the governor to do- he is a US citizen, who is currently serving the people of California.

A little perspective here. Many of the news articles (including the one linked above) that I have read on this subject speak at great length about how the inhabitants of Graz view the death penalty as 'barbaric'. Some even mentions that Graz' offical slogan is 'City of Human Rights'. No mention if that includes the rights Williams took from his victims by murdering them. However, in all of this outrage, there is one point that the media apparently missed. Europeans are entitled to their view. However, in poll after poll, a sizable majority of citizens of the United States of America in general and the State of California in particular approve of the death penalty. Especially for convicted and unrepentant multiple murderers such as 'Tookie' Williams undoubtedly was. Therefore, since the citizens of the United States (and especially the citizens of California) approve of the death penalty, it is meet for their elected officials, of whom Governor Schwarzenegger is one, to follow their constituents' directives- not the uninformed and rather naive fantasies of the citizenry of a foreign country.

The entire affair makes the Austrians look both petty and intolerant in my opinion, as they are quite ready to preach tolerance and understanding for the views of those trying to kill us all (including them), yet they are not willing to show the same tolerance or understanding to the views and opinions of the citizens of the United States- and yet they attempt to claim the moral high ground. This sort of moral hypocrisy (the Kyoto treaty is another shining example) is one of the reasons that fewer and fewer Americans (except a large percentage of the Democratic Party and their stooges in the MSM) pay much attention to what most of Europe has to say. In fact, I regret that Europe is rapidly growing irrelevant- and if they don't stop wasting their time in hypocritical moralizing to the one country that has kept them safe from totalitarianism thus far in the Twentieth Century and start waking up to the Islamist threat within their borders, they will be worse than irrelevant.

Monday, December 26, 2005

About Those WMDs....

Here's hoping that all of you out there enjoyed a very merry Christmas and further hopes that your New Year's celebration will be equally entertaining. And now, back to our regualr posting...

Thanks to Captain Ed Morrissey, it appears that a major hole has just been poked in the Democratic/MSM argument that Bush Lied about WMDs in Iraq.

According to the London Times, a Dutch businessman has just been sentenced to fifteen eyars in prison for supplying those non-existent WMDs to Saddam Hussein! In fact, he was specifically sentenced for supplying the WMDs used agains the Kurds in 1991. The same WMDs that the treaty that ended the First Gulf War specifically called on Saddam to either give up or present proof of destruction. Proof that Saddam never provided, which was one of the many valid reasons why George W. Bush finally deposed him.

Hmmm, haven't noticed much play on that story by our own so-called 'mainstream' purveyors of propaganda (ie the New York Times, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, et al....) But of course, if the MSM actually took note of htis story, as Captain Ed so correctly notes, that would mean they might actually have to acknowledge that their trademarked Bush Lied story does not now and did not then hold any water whatsoever. And we all know how much the MSM hates to admit their many mistakes.

Hat tip to Captain's Quarters.

Saturday, December 24, 2005

Merry Christmas

As tomorrow is Christmas Day, there will be no posting unless some enormous story breaks, and I feel an uncontrollable urge to comment. In that unlikely event, I will post on Christmas. However, I would like to take the opportunity on this Christmas Eve of 2005 to wish everyone a very merry Christmas and wish you all a Good Night.

Merry Christmas!

Entertaining the Troops

The AMC channel has been running a 'Christmas with the Duke' film festival of some of John Wayne's best-known films. I was watching the classic World War II film Sands of Iwo Jima, and was struck by the dedication to the men of the United States Marine Corps, as well as the portaryal of them as ordinary men who manage to perform heroic acts under pressure. The hero, Seargeant Stryker, as played by Wayne, fulfills his mission when he himself is killed, and the men he trained pick up his letter and carry on. The movie, filmed in 1949, is still remarkable for showing some of the actual work of war, and co-starred the only three survivors of the famous flag-raising on Mount Suribachi.

That message, and the underlying support struck an even stronger nerve as I read an article posted today about the current 'celebrities' distaste for performing for the troops. It is so different from the true patriotism showed by the stars of yesterday, who were willing to far more than just 'entertain' for the troops. Many of them actually enlisted in the US military and some, such as James Stewart (USAF, Brigadier General), even fought in the war, rather than stand on the sidelines. Bob Hope went overseas as long as he was able, entertaining his way through World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the Cold War and the First Gulf War. He was loved by the troops for his indomitable spirit, and his genuine suppoort for the boys overseas. Yet today's entertainers seem to have forgotte that the men and women of the Armed Forces share the same native country as do they, and it is their blood and sweat that make America safe for the Jane Fondas to spit at them.

Reading this article, the section that really got me, though was as follows:
...many celebrities have been wary of going because they think it might be seen that they are endorsing the war. "And I say it's not. I tell them these men and women are over there because our country sent them, and we have the absolute necessity to try to bring them as much happiness as we can."

Fear is also a factor. "They're scared," country singer Craig Morton, who is in Iraq on the USO's Hope and Freedom Tour 2005, told USA Today. "It's understandable. It's not a safe and fun place and a lot of people don't want to take the chance."

I'm sorry, but to me, no it is not understandable. These entertainers make enormous amounts of money by entertaining other people, while our soliders make a mere pittance in comparison, and the comparitive value of their profession is incalculable. No singer, entertainer, journalist or film star has ever saved a single person's life, nor have they contrinbuted anything of value to this great country. In comparison, soldiers have kept us free and have allowed those same entertainers to voice thoughts which are frankly disgraceful. Under an Ismlamic system like that espoused by al Quaeda, or by the Taliban, they certainly would not be making any money- and the vast majority of their 'art' would bring them prison terms at the very least. Again, the only thing that stands between them and that unwelcome future are the brave men and women of the United States Armed Forces. The least that they could do is donate a little of their time to help those same men and women sitting in foxholes feel a little better. Isn't it?

I will give some kudos to Al Franken and Robin Williams, who despite their frequent bouts of idiocy regarding current national security, do at least appear to have some idea of patriotism, and who at least are willing to go to the troops. Maybe if they spend enough time over there, they might even convince their Leftist cronies to drop the 'baby-killer' moniker, which was never true. But I won't hold my breath....

Hat tip to Matt Drudge.

Friday, December 23, 2005

Liberals and the Courts

Interesting that liberals consider that only Supreme Court decisions that benefit their cause are sacrosanct. They have been struggling for years to get courts to overturn the gun ownership rights enshrined in the Second Amendment, and have fought hard to get the courts to step into all kinds of things that are not their business, such as national security. And it is funny that the anti-smoking lawyers are heroes on the Left after they lost over 700 court decisions before finally beginning to wwin.

Liberals are very willing to fight against clearly stated Constitutional language or against common sense until they find the rigvht judge. Those decisions obviously were not sacrossanct! Yet Roe versus Wade, widely reviled as one of the flimsiest legal decisions ever, since it is based on a supposed 'right' that clearly exists nowhere in the Constitution, is somehow exempt from discussion? That sounds suspiciously like the Southern slave-owners, after the infamous Dred Scott decision. That one was overturned by the results of the Civil War and the passage of the 13th Amendment (ratified under Andrew Johnson in 1865). I believe that eventually Roe will also fall, since the Court did not then and does not now enjoy the right of legislative power. Roe is the classic example of the Supreme Court overstepping its authority, and the Congress of the time being too happy with the results to rebuke the Court. The Presidency could not interfere, as at that time, remember, it was being seriously wounded thanks to Nixon's shenanigans. Not until Bill Clinton would we have a President who so seriously undermined that august office.

So now that Samuel Alito, a widely respected jurist, who has been a model of strict contructionism, has been revealed to have argued in 1985 for Roe's repeal, I am sure that the Left and their DEmocratic allies will seize on this as evidence that Alito is somhow not in the mainstream. Maybe not in the mainstream of journalistic iwshful thinking, but certainly in the manistream of the American public. After all, the Left and their allies in the MSM are so out of step that the New York Times called Alito "an advocate for the right', but called Ruth Ginsburg, undeniably a far-left advocate, a "balanced jurist at home in the middle'. Hmm...Who's out of step with the mainstream?

Hat tip to Matt Drudge.

Thursday, December 22, 2005

Presidential Power versus the NY Times

Lost in the fuss the New York Times and other major media outlets are making over the suddenly hot topic of 'warrantless' searches as posited on the pages of the Times, is the fact that every President since at least Carter has claimed this privilege, and in fact it was expanded under the Clinton Administration through the mouthpiece of the hypocrtical Jamie Gorelick in 1994.

Perhaps the New York Times would care to explain why it was perfectly legal and not worthy of a hysterical front-page article during the Clinton Administration (A Demcratic Administration, if you recall), but now, that we are engaged in a war to the death with Islamic terrorists who have proven time and again that they respect the law of neither God nor Man, that these same provisions (when used by a Republican President) are somehow terrifying? This despite the fact that Clinton's Administraiton lied under oath (Lewinsky), ignored court orders (Elian Gonzalez), and massacred American citizens (Waco)- none of which has occurred under the Administration of George W. Bush!

Charles Hurt in the Washington Times makes the (I believe legitimate) argument that the President does indeed have the power to order such searches, and makes the point that both previous aAdministrations and the courts have entirely and consistently agreed with him, even in the case of FISA. Mr. Hurt is backed up by the research of the guys at Power Line who have done some serious research and have concluded that the Preseident's actions are legal, no matter which yeardstick has been used. They also quote from usually-liberal law professor Cass Sundstein, who agrees with them that this is part and parcel of the President's authority under the Constitutions- which neither Congress nor the Courts can lightly disregard.

Now when is the New York Times going to spend this kind of energy on researching and exposing a truly illegal act- the leaking of the NSA material to them in the first place? I''m not holding my breath....

Hat tip to Matt Drudge and the guys at the Power Line.

Wednesday, December 21, 2005

It's the Economy, Stupid!

When Bill CLinton was running for President back in 1991-1992, we were inundated with advertisements (and 'news' stories too) telling us that 'it's the economy, stupid!'. Democrats love to look back on those halcyon days when the economy was supposedly strong and the news media seems to think that the economy was at its peak. Well, no. Current economic performance has outpaced the so-called 'Clinton Era', and according to Breitbart, despite the travails of the past year the economy still managed to grow at 1.5 percent, which is the fastest in over two years.. This despite the effects of Katrina, and the other economic hits we have taken.

Yet none of the major media is talking about it. When Clinton's economy was doing much less well, it was front-page news, yet Bush's economy, which is eclipsiong the CLinton achienvementson all fronts, is barely mentioned. Why is this? The most amazing thing, though, is the Bush Administration's failure to make this a selling point as well. Most Americans would be far more charitable toward this Administration if they made their economic case more strongly, in order to counter the daily lies and innuendoes published by the Exempt Media as 'news'. The only news they can see is defeatism- whether it is the US economy under a Republican President or a war that they disapprove of. Maybe the Brian Sussman Solution might help- pretend that all of this good news is happening under Clinton's watch!

Hat tip to Matt Drudge.

Tuesday, December 20, 2005

What Victory Means

No, I have not yet arrived at any real estimation of what conditions that assure us victory will look like. However, the very talented Tigerhawk has done an admirable job in laying out his idea of the conditions that must occur before we can safely and truly claim victory in the war against the Islamists (al Quaeda, Taliban wannabes, etc). Among the many salutory points in his remarkable essay, is the following:
Give the average Muslim an idea worth fighting for. Average Abdul need not "like" the United States or give us "credit" in any way, shape or form for this strategy to work. He only needs to want to choose his own government and have an idea how to do that.

This is an astounding point that most, if not all of our so-called Exempt Media have completely missed in their rush to claim defeat and predict the eternal hatred of 'the Arab street'. Perhaps if they were not so focused on their own anti-Bush agenda and theirt desire for their country to lose this war (why that is, I do not know, as they would surely be some of the first to die in the inevitable bloodletting that would accompany such a defeat), they might even be able to grasp some of this.

In any event, this essay is a must-read, together with Tigerhawk's equally cogent updated and annotated version of Steven Den Beste's essay on the strategic overview of the war. Read the whole of both essays and then decide.

Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds.

Monday, December 19, 2005

Media Short-Sightedness

Excellent post on the media's incurable and downright dangerous lack of a sense of history at Real Clear Politics. This goes hand in glove with the media's lack of any real qualifications to perform their job. A journalism degree is one of the easiest, in terms of scholastic requirements, to obtain, and requires no real skills other than the ability to write. Most journalists would fail miserably if presented with a course of study that required work where the answers cannot be fudged. And few schools of journalism present the past in context, nor do they have teachers who are interested in presenting the United States as the force for good it has generally been. They are too busy finding fault with their homeland.

Most journalists, therefore, have no understanding of history, and thus are unable to put contemporary events in any historical context. Coupled with their general distrust and dislike for thier own country (especially when a Republican is president) they are singularly ill-equipped to execute their duty to inform the public regarding contemporary events and are decidedly unquailifed to present commentary on those events.

Hat tip to Michelle Malkin.

And black celebrities still don't get it....

So it appears that Mary J Blige still doesn't understand. In a recent interview she gave to the UK Guardian, the spoiled-brat singer claims:
"The blacker you are, the worse it is for you. If you're mixed, you've got a shot. If you cater to what white America wants you to do and how they want you to look, you can survive. But if you want to be yourself, and try to do things that fit you, and your skin, nobody cares about that. At the end of the day, white America dominates and rules. And it's racist."

Never mind, Mary, dear, that you owe everything you are to that 'racist' society. Never mind that so-called racist society allowed you and helped you to become a celebrity. Could you have done that in any other society? I don't think so. If you were actually born in your so-wonderful Africa, you would be scratching for a living or maybe living as some dictator's whore if you weere good-looking enough. If you were in some Communist paradise like Cuba or North Korea, you would be on a farm because Asians as a race look down on blacks- especially American blacks who don't realise how good they have it. You would not be rich, famous, and able to make these asinine comments that only prove you know absolutely nothing about real racism. And it is true. You you know absolutely nothing about racism. Have you ever been follwed by little children screamin, 'Look mom, it's a black person!"? I have had that experience, though in my case it was 'Look mom- it's a white devil'- simply becasue I was living in a place where non-colored people were rare. Thus I was an object of real racism. Has any white person ever told you you cannot enter their place of business because of your color or race? Not in America, Mary dear. But in many parts of the worl,d, if you are not the right race/color, you cannot enter a place of business. It has happened to me. That is racism, Mary dear.

In fact, I have lived abroad in many places, and America is one of the least-racist places on earth. And if you can't appreciate it, maybe you should leave those bodyguards and limousines behind and try living in a place as a normal person where you really are an object becasue of your race. It might make you appreciate your own country- or at least stop spouting idiotic and unture rhetoric. You don't know what racism is, and you don't even have the grace to thank those 'racist' white people who made you a multi-millionaire. They didn't buy your album becasue of your color, Mary dear. They bought because they appreciated your art. I don't but as a musician myself, I can at least appreciate good music, and I don't really care who makes it. You are the real racist, Mary dear, not the folks who made you rich and famous by buying your albums.

Gankomon is Back

I have been traveling for the better part of the past two weeks, and am very glad to be back home. Travel wears after a while- even in as nice a place to stay as the Mandalay Bay resort in Las Vegas! In any event, I am back and posting will resume as per normal from today.

Liberal Bias? What Liberal Bias?

Well, maybe the liberal bias that you folks in the MSM have spent so much of your time denying. I t turns out that not only are the mainstream media biased, but thery are pretty badly biased. A new study by a group of UCLA researchers has found that the media lean 'significantly' to the left. In order to maintain their independence, the study's research assistants were evenly divided between Bushies and Goreites from the 2000 elecetion, and they accepted no outside money for their research. They basically scored members of Congress and then studied news articles in comparison. the results, as any conservative could have told them, was that the media are indeed biased and pretty badly so. Maybe they might actually start doing something about it, since they are losing readers in droves...OK, that was a pipe dream. But we can hope....

Hat tip to Matt Drudge.

Friday, December 09, 2005

Where's the Outrage?

This post may be a few days late- I have beeen traveling and have not been able to keep up with my blogging as well as I had hoped. However, as I was traveling a few thoughts occcurred to me regarding both our current conflict and one in particular that we participated in approximately fifty years previously.

The previous conflict was of course, the Second World War, and the day before yesterday was the 64th anniversary off the December 7, 1941 attack on the United States Pacific Fleet moored in Pearl Harbor. Although the US no longer adequately remembers this event, there are some interesting parallels with the current conflict that erupted into the national conscience following the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center.

In both attacks, the perpetrators struck an America that was at peace- and America that had not engaged the oppressors in military action and in fact had worked to assist them in various endeavors, though less so in 1941 than in 2001. In both cases, political disagreements had preceded the attacks, though the United States had not engaged in military actions against the attackers.

However, there are also some important differences. In 1941, Japan had planned to declare war precisely one hour before the attacks, thus satisfying the laws of war. They were unable to deliver ttheir declaration on time but it was the idea that the Japanese were attempting to break the spirit of law as opposed to the letter that outraged the American people of that time. The Japanese also confined their attacks to military targets using a conventional military force operating according to the established laws of war. The US Pacific Fleet was a legitimate target. And finally, the American people reacted with outrage to the attacks.

In September 2001, the Islamists had actually declared war against the United States previously, and had spent the previous decade attacking Americans, both military and civivlian targets. However, the Administration of the time- Bill Clinton's- ignored the declaration and took no action against the perpetrators. The attack on the World Trade Center, unlike the Pearl Harbor attack, was inflicted entirely on civilians, although the attackers attempted to hit the Pentagon as well, which is a military target.

However, the largest difference was the response by both the media and the politicians in the opposition. In 1941, the media deplored the attack and had no problem depicting the attackers as dangerous enemies of the United States. Likewise, the Republican Party, which had just lost the White House to FDR's Democratic Party once again, had no problem putting politics aside to stand with the Democrats against the nation's enemies. However the media in 2001 was more interested in blaming their own country for being attacked and showed no sign of patriotism whatsoever, as was evidenced by the entirely needless and selfish debate among the nation's anchors over whether they should even wear an American flag when on camera! Likewise, the vast majority of the Democratic party, instead of standing with the Republicans, chose to use the atttacks as an opportunity to attack their political opponents, even going so far as to characterize Republicans as more dangerous than the Islamist attackers.

Where's the outrage? The United States was attacked. Many of our citizens are dead. And yet the media and the Democrats still can't put their country ahead of their own narrow partisan interests. On this anniversary of the December 7 attack, a day that 'will live in infamy', can't we realize that we must stand together and defeat our enemies before we once again return to our partisan infighting. I think national survival is more important than which party occupies the White House. Do the Democrats and the media agree? That is the question.

Friday, December 02, 2005

Monday Night Spin

This post today in the Carolina Journalby Jon Ham, father of the well-known blogger Mary Catherine Ham, contemplated the amusing result if Monday Night Football was covered like the war in Iraq. The story finishes by saying,

The insurgent Steelers, striking sporadically with lesser equipment against the hegemonic Colts, inflicted serious damage with several tackles, a sack and some pass breakups, holding Indianapolis to only two field goals in the 15-minute span. Observers said it looked as if the tide were turning in favor of the insurgent Steelers.

In the third period, the Steelers again held the Colts to a single touchdown, damaging the Colts’ aura of invincibility and giving hope to the insurgents that their time would come. Some critics pointed to the stands as some Colt fans began filing out, saying that this showed the Colts losing support at home.The Steelers were even stronger in the final period, holding the Colt juggernaut to a mere three points. “I think Indianapolis was just in the wrong game, at the wrong place at the wrong time,” one Colt critic was heard to say.

The final score, by the way, was Colts 26, Steelers 7.

Just imagine that the media reported on all events the way they are "reporting" on the economy and Iraq. Just like the "news" being propagated by our Exempt Media in regards to the economy and Iraq, the facts are accurate (mostly) but the spin is ridiculous.

On a side note, it is a constant amazement to me that the media has managed to bury the economic numbers, which are far mor spectacular and steadier, than Bill clinton's ever were. Yet that was a 'Boom Era' and this is a "recession'. I cannot understadn why the Administration doesn't pound this drum constantly, especailly since the numbers are so clearly in their favor. And if they would actually defend themselves and point out how disingenuous and downright dishonest the Democrats have been, I think the President's poll numbers would respond as well. Pardon the excursion. Back to the point at hand.

Not that I suppose any of our so-professional, so-objective Exempt Media Organs will appreciate ithe humor in the preceding article. They have already proven to be able to forget today what they were saying yesterday, and they clearly have no opinion at all of the actual epople of this country- unless they occupy positions of prominence in Hollywood or the Democratic Party's undergrowth. Yes, just imagine if we had a truly honest and patriotic media as well....oh, in fantasyland again, I suppose.

Hat tip to Hugh Hewitt.

And More Media Hypocrisy

John Leo over at the marvelous site reminds us that the Press' current outrage over the news that *gasp* the United States Armed Forces may be paying to have positive (and true) stories printed in the Iraqi press may be due to their own richly deserved guilty consciences over their own lack of courage in revealing Saddam Hussein's atrocities.

We all have heard of the Abu Ghraib prison now, but John Burns of the New York Times reminds us that under Saddam, the prison was "the heart of Saddam's reign of terror." Yet Burns says that few if any of his colleagues even knew what Abu Ghraib was! In face, when Saddam allowed limited access under pressure from George W Bush, the BBC didn't even go, beceasuue they were afraid to cause trouble. Only when the United States military came into the control of Abu Ghraib did most news reported suddenly discover that the prison even existed. Knowiing of course that they were under no threat whatsoever from the US military- despite Eason Jordan's over-wrought claims.

It appears that the media only expresses outrage regarding propaganda when it is propagated by a force that is both truthful and sincere. And when the news propagated by said force easiy debunks the MSM's own propaganda- which is neither truthful nor sincere.

Hat tip to Matt Drudge and Glenn Reynolds.

Thursday, December 01, 2005

Objectivity from the Media? Hah!

So Jimmy Breslin of Newsday is unhappy with Hillary Clinton's stand on Iraq. Well, well. My heart simply bleeds for Brelsin's unhappiness. While I would agree that Hillary is probably one of the most dishonest and thoroughly calculating politicians in recent history, I think Mr. Breslin's rant says more about his own beliefs and preferences than it does about Hillary Clinton. The Press hass long tried to pretend that they are objective, but here Breslin clearly thinks that because he opposes the President Bush's policies, Hillary should come out against them as well. Unfortunately for Mr Breslin, the majority of Americans, despite the Media's five years of attacks on the President, disinformation and outright lying, still think that we should not cut and run from Iraq- despite the wishes of many Democrats and the vast majority of the Exempt Media. And last itme I checked, the United States was a representative republic. That menas, Mr. Breslin, that just because a majority in the Press longs for an American defeat. The majority of real Americans, not the hypocrites who populate Hollywood and most pressrooms, are not cowards nor are they willing to see their country defeated.

As has been said many times before, we can have a real debate regarding the intellignece (or lack thereof) that led up to the invasion of Iraq. We can have a debate on whether or not the strategy first implemented was correct. However, events are going our way now (though the Exempt Media is doing their best to ignore it) and a pullout now would unquestionablly be seen both as a sign of weakness and as a defeat. That is the last thing we want. We have the Muslim terrorists on the run at present, Mr Breeslin. bi Laden is hiding in a cave, and the al Quaeda leadership is decimated and depressed. The only thing keeping them in this fight is the US media with their treasonous support. And your lack of understanding as regards military strategy is shocking for someone whose job it is to present events to the nation. Tell me again what qualifications are required to be a 'professional' journalist?

Hat tip to Matt Drudge.

Wednesday, November 30, 2005

More Leftist Ignorance

It is no secret that the American Left, including regrettably the vast majority of the Democratic Party, know very little about their own country's military. (And they appear to be equally ignorant regarding the many high points in their country's history as well!) However, it appears that they are so ignorant regarding their countrymen who are actually trying to do somehting to help their country, as opposed to the near-treasonous back-biting that the Left likes to engage in, they aren't even able to recognize American uniforms! This piece of hilarity was exposed by a report posted on Cybercast News Service. When will the Left learn? Hehehe...

Hat tip to Matt Drudge.

Christmas Spin

When the Washington, DC Christmas tree was renamed to the Holiday Tree sometime during the 1990s, the press somehow managed to completely ignore the event. Notwithstanding the long tradition of having a Christmas tree, and the undeniable fact that roughly 75 percent of Americans self-identify as Christian.

However, when the Speaker of the House of Representatives insists on renaming said tree to its traditional name of 'Christmas Tree', somehow that is news-worthy. I wonder how we got to the point where our media is more interested in destroying our cultural traditions than they are in assisting their President in defeating a deadly enemy. Sad, isn't it?

Hat tip to Matt Drudge.

Tuesday, November 29, 2005

More Howling Moonbats

In sharp relief to the statesmanship of Senator Lieberman, there is a sizeable percentage of the American Left that simply doesn't get it.

Ted Turner, supposedly a member of the Fourth Estate, showed his own ignorance and irresponsibility today with his comments that Iraq is no better off since the American overthrow of the Baathist Husseini dictatorship. Turner has long been known as leftist, but this crass defense of an indefensible position shows him to be either an unrepentant totalitarian, or a truly naive 'useful idiot' as Stalin used to characterize the American supporters of Communism. Personally, I lean toward the former- even Turner can't be that ignorant. I think he is upset becasue the United States has removed another of his pet dictatorships. Pretty soon, only dear Fidel will be left for the American Left to idolize. Faster, please.

The Loyal Opposition

Proving that not all Democrats have abandoned the ideal of the loyal opposition practised by the Republicans during World War II, Senator Joe Lieberman gave an object lesson in how to practise the role of wartime opposition to the rest of his party on his return from Iraq today.

According to the Hartford Courant, Senator Lieberman spent two days this week in Iraq talking to Iraqi and American officals and soldiers. He has made four such trips in the past 17 months, and can reasonably be said to be one of the senate's best-informed members on the subjectg. Upon his return, he praised President Bush's strategy and urged the President to make the public aware of the successes in Iraq as a counterbalance to the Mainstream Media's unending drumbeat of negativity.

Kudos to Senator Lieberman, and especially considering the inability of so many of his fellow Democrats to put patriotism above partisan politics. I would remind the Democrats of the principled stand taken by the 1944 Republican candidate Thomas Dewey regarding his refusal to make Pearl harbor a campaign issue: "I would rather lose the presidency and win the war than the reverse." A quick history lesson reminds us that he did lose the Presidency, but his country won the war- decisively. Too bad most of the Democratic Party (with the exception of such patriots as Senator Lieberman) have long since abandoned even the idea of loyalty to country.

Monday, November 28, 2005

Immigration Reform?

Though I did not comment on it, I was aware of the recent story regarding the apparent invasion of Texas by the Mexican Army, which our oh-so-professional MSM have decided to bury as much as possible. Fortunately, Captain Ed Morissey was more professional, and thought that this story deserved to see the light, despite the reluctance of the MSM. However, despite the gloomy state of affairs regarding our borders (or lack thereof), I was heartened today to see that President Bush has finally announced immigration reform.

However, as I read the story, there was plenty to make me apprehensive regarding the Administration's ability to take this illegal infiltration problem seriously. Although the President did seem to embrace more enforcement:

Bush said he does not support amnesty for illegal immigrants, but he does want to give workers a way to earn an honest living doing jobs that other Americans are unwilling to do and issue more green cards.

To me, this seems wrongheaded. mexicans and other nationalities will not quit coming over here until we show that we are actually serious about protecting our borders. No other country has a problem with being very strict regarding their borders, and even Mexico is stricter (though more prone to bribery) than the United States. This is especailly frustrating since the barriers for legal immigration are extremely high. Perhaps we should think about making legal immigration (to those who can prove their bona-fides) easier, whille at the same time making it much harder for these illegals. Hanging out at Home Depots or in other parking lots waiting for work should not be an option for these illegals, and it is past time we make our local officials aware of our anger over their refusal to enforce the laws already on the books. The President might at last be beginning to listen. Hopefully it isn't too late to force our other elected representatives to do the same.

Thursday, November 24, 2005

Thanksgiving Post

No serious posting today. Let's all be thankful we live in the United States, and let's try to keep it the greatest and most wonderful place in the world to live and bring up the next generation. Have a wonderful Thanksgiving weekend, and here's hoping you have as much to be thankful for as do I.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Tuesday, November 22, 2005

CNN 'X's Out VP

CNN claims it was a 'technical malfunction' as opposed to 'operator error' that caused a large black X to appear repeatedly over Vice-President Cheney's face during a nationally televised speech last night. However, it has been reported that a control room staffer laughed when the incident occurred, leaving open the possibility that someone within CNN may have deliberately planned it. Being aware of the high level of dislike for the Administration in the media in general and CNN in particular, the idea that soneone at CNN may have planned this occurrence does not seem particularly far-fetched to me.

After all, can anyone imagine this happening to a Democratic Vice-President? Remember how the media fell over themselves to try to cover for former Vice President Al Gore's remarkable claims- even going so fart as to say he was simply 'too smart' for the average American? Despite his absurd claims to have invented the Internet and be the basis for 'Love Story'? Yet the media lept to his defense at the time.

Finally, no one at this blog believes anything CNN says anymore. Remember, this is the same media organization that deliberately kept quiet regarding stories detrimental to Saddam Hussein to protect their own self-interests. Despite their claim to be interested only in presenting news, they seem awfully interested in only presenting news that damages the United States, (or Republicans, when they are in power) it appears to me. It does make one wonder where CNN's loyalties actually lie...

Hat tip to Matt Drudge.

Monday, November 21, 2005

Leftist 'Tolerance'

Funny how the Left is so 'tolerant' towards minorities- unless said minorities happen to think differently than the prevailing mode of thought on the Left! The insults leveled at Michelle Malkin and other minority conservatives is appalling. Lieutenant Governor Steele of Maryland has been called an 'Uncle Tom' and worse names and the filth directed at respected journalist and economist Thomas Sowell by these so-called progressives is too disgusting to reprint here.

The Left is so very tolerant- unless your views do not match theirs. They are so very able to be understanding- unless it is THEIR houses that the shelters will be buiolt next to. The Left are the ultimate hypocrites, in my opinion, and until they realize that they are not God's gift, they will continue to have a serious credibility problem, now that their is a counter-press to expose their little lies. But can't they at least conduct a civil conversation? Based on the responses on the Left-leaning blogs so far, it appears that they cannot. They claim to be so very tolerant, but at the first challenge to their ideas, instead of debating in the arena of ideas, they immediately descend into personal attacks and name-calling. This is nothing new- they learned it from the Communists, who have bankrolled and supported themk for so long. But it is a shame that the American people seem to be so easily taken in by this.

There is a wonderful quote by Helen MacInnes regarding the groupthink practiced by so many on the Left. One of her characters in the 1947 book Friends and Lovers says of a Socialist/Communist character quoting from his special newspaper- 'You are as spoon-fed as the old boys in their fat leather chairs at the club- you just get it out of a different bowl." I cannot think of a better picture. Maybe America will wake up in time to hoist these phonies by their own petard. But I doubt it...

Relativism from Chris Matthews...

The Mainstream Media has given us yet another example of their profound ignorance regarding both our opponents in the current war and their own culture. Faced with an example to clearly state the difference between the duties performed by his fellow countryment and countrywomen in the United States armed forces and the cowardly thugs who kill innocent civilians who populate the ranks of militant Islam, CBS' Chris Matthews flunked badly. And what is almost worse, Mr. Matthews doesn't have the courage to state his views in the venue of American public opinion. Instead, like so many of his Leftist cohort, he ran to a country where he was sure hs sentiments wouoldd be met with approval, instead of actually speaking out to his fellow Americans.

Making a speech to a friendly audience at the University of Toronto, Matthews said, "The person on the other side is not evil -- they just have a different perspective." This more than anything shows how badly the mainstream press has lost their bearings. They cannot even clearly identify evil when it comes up and spits in their face.

I ask them- what else can you call an opponent who targets innocents? An enemy who refuses to fight in the open and sneaks around beheading people whose onbly sin was to be born in the wrong religion? An enemy who uses airliners filled with innocent people as a weapon to attack a country that has done more to help Muslims than any other? What else to you call people who have stated their goal is to destroy the world and reconstitute a barbaric medieval Caliphate where only Muslim religious leaders can make decisions? Where women are property and where other religions are allowed to subsist at the mercy (or lack thereof) of the Caliph? And, having seen this 'mercy' in action, can anyone doubt that the Christians and Jews would be wiped out as soonas possible? Islam has always tried to expand by the sword and destroy the religions it faces. Why should we expect that this would be any different?

They can call George W. Bush a fascist and have no problem with that, but when it comes to accurately characterizing the Islamic fanatics who we are fighting, they cannot do it. Once again, the MSM shows that they do not understand the nature of the enemy- and they have so fallen into the partisan wars that they honestly consider their own President a bigger threat than the barbarians who would destgroy our entire world. What happened to their moral clarity? Or did they sell out so long ago that they are no longer able to make the distinction?

This only shows how partisan and biased the media truly is- and why they should not be trusted. Hat tip to Matt Drudge.

11/21/05:1408-UPDATE: Wow. I actually scooped Michelle Malkin on this one! I am in shock....

Monday, November 14, 2005

Googling Media Falsehoods

It appears that, thanks to Tech Central Station, that the Mainstream Media are not very good at executing their jobs.

Now as I understand it, the job of a reporter is to, well, report the facts. Now we all know that the Mainstream Media is completely biased against Republicans in general and George W. Bush in particular. This fact was exposed, if nit wasn't obvious before, by Dan Rather and Mary Mapes' pursuit of the false story of Bush-AWOL. Never mind that Clinton is an admitted draft dodger! That was OK in 1992-1998. Only in 2000 did that suddenly become not OK if the person was a perffectly responsible reservist. By the way, Big Media- George can fly fast fighter planes. Can any of you?In fact can you do anything other than carp at Republican managment of this country and wish your attempts at throwing the last two elections hadn't failed? But I digress....

The Mainstream Media also are fairly clueless regarding the actual substance of the stroies the public relies on them to report. Case in point is the TV "technology reporter" on a California local television station who was talking about one of the company Logitech's products. THis ignoramous, after taking the anchor through a fairly accurate description of the product in questsion, then fatuously identified the underlying wireless technology known as Bluetooth as being 'made by a company called Bluetooth'! This had me rolling on the floor laughing at her appalling ignorance and clear lack of research.

However, it appears that so-called reporters who work for big news purveyors are not much better. The current campaign amongst the media elite and their friends in the Democratic Party and on the Left is that Bush Lied in order to get us into war. However, if you do a Google search on three little words- 'Clinton Iraq 1998', you will discover links to all sorts of articles printed BY THE NEWS MEDIA that disproves their entire thesis.

Read the whole thing. Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds.

Sunday, November 13, 2005

What are We Fighting For?

I received an email from a friend today, pointing me towards the subject of today's post. Normally, I take these forwarded email commentaries with a large grain of salt, as their is a lot of forgery possible with today's technology- ask Dan Rather! However, I found the source for this one, so I in turn am pointing you towards it to read for yourselves.

A retired Major general, Vernon Chong of the United States Air Force wrote an article for the magazine eco-logic Powerhouse on October 1, 2005, regarding the war and what it would mean if we lose it. And yes, Virginia, this is a war. Regardless of what our liberal neighbors want to think, this is a war. Only their ignorance and blind hatred of the President have so far made them unable to recognize it. However, as much as I regard them with contempt, i cannot wish that we lose so that they discover first-hand what life under sharia is like. They will be the first to die, since it is their agenda that is most anathemous to the Muslims they so love to praise!

However, that is neither here nor there. General Chong spelled out the situation and its causes very concisely. And one of the things that the General wrote was as follows:

If we lose the war, our production, income, exports, and way of life will all vanish, as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us, if they were threatened by the Muslims?

If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else?

The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore, are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We better know it too, and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.

There is much, much more. Major General Chong does not accuse the liberals and their friends in the Press of disloyaty and treason, though I think that is exactly what they are doing, spurred by their hatred of Republicans and conservatives. They consider George Bush a greater threat than Osama Bin Laden. Their mistake. It is not George Bush who will behead them when they wish to protest that pornography is protected. It is not George Bush who will marry off their daughters without their permission, then rape and execute them for 'shaming the family'. It is Muslim extremists. When will the United States wake up? It took the attack on Pearl Harbor to wake us out of our post-World War I sleep. What will it take this time? A Muslim imam dictacting our rights under sharia from the steps of the Supreme Court?

Read the whole thing and make up your own mind.

Saturday, November 12, 2005

More From The 'Religion of Peace'

The so-called mainstream media really likes to emphasize that Islam is a religion of peace. Well, OK. Maybe they have changed their spots since their origin in as a blood-soaked, misogynous, hate-filled culture that has historically spread by destroying other cultures and converting the people at the edge of a sword. This stands in stark contrast to most of the world's other major religions, few of which match Islam's ferocity and desire to spread by the sword- at least not recently.

Neither Christianity nor Judaism has been known as a top-down religion, and neither has ever made a concentrated effort to control the world by sword, though both have had edisodes where individuals or single states undertook imperial endeavors under the name of God. However, at no time did the entire Christian world, urged on by the organs of the united Christian Church attempt to conquer the rfest of the world and convert it to Christianity.

You may bring up the Crusdaes. I remind you first that not all Christians participated (the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Byzantine Empire throughout remained in a position of watchful neutrality) and second that the forces of Europe did not unite under the leadership of the Pope- very much different from the warrior imams who preach holy crusade to Islam throughout history. And I will also remind the reader that the Crusades were specifically a reaction to the Muslim destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem and in general a reaction to protect fellow Christians against the cruel treatment of non-Muslim pilgrims- they did not originate in a vacuum.

I biring up this history lesson because Al Quaeda (an organization that is covertly supported and cheered on by a large percentage of the world's Muslim population) today declared Queen Elizabeth II of England an 'enemy of Islam'. Since the Queen, despite her titular position as the Head of the Church of England is one of the most secular (and constitutional) monarchs in the world, I fail to see what she has done to be an 'enemy of Islam' other than by her existence and choice of religion. This declaration should clearly show that al Quaeda (remember- they are supported and cheered on by a sizable percentage of the world's Muslim population) are still trying to accomplish the goal that they have aimed at since the sixth century AD- destroy all religions and peoples other than those of Islam.

Still think Islam is a 'religion of peace'? I don't wish to live the life of a dhimmi- still less do I wish to subordinate myself to a religion such as Islam. And remember that dhimmis are only memmbers of 'officially tolerated non-Muslim religions- something that only Muslims can decide- not the dhimmis. I find I have a lack of faith in Islam's ability to keep any promises relating to non-Muslims status under sharia. So I'll keep my weapons sharp for these followers of the 'religion of peace'. And continue to expose the cowardly and ignorant 'journalists' who are so industrious in advancing this false dictum. I understand why politicians must mouth this drivel- but for journalists to do it speaks either or fear to write the truth or mountainous ignorance both of Islam and of their own culture.

Wednesday, November 09, 2005

Election Results

So I observe that all of Governor Schwarzenegger's pet initiatives in California went down to defeat last night. That is too bad. The one-party state in the People's Republic of California badly needed a shake-up, and these initiatives were a step in the right direction. Since I do not believe all the information is in, I will reserve judgement, but I believe that California is herading in a direction tat does not bode well for its future. Every state that has gone the big-government, high-tax route in the past (see New York, Massachusetts, etc) has suffered repercussions, and California is no different, in my opinion. So now the people of California have spoken. But it is still a crying shame.

in other news, it appears that the Democratic Party made some gains, winning the governorships in Virginia and New Jersey. No surprise in New Jersey, but I believe that Virginia can be laid at the feet of the MSM, who have done their best to downplay the Bush administration's accomplishments, and have made destroying his Presidency their number-one goal since he first won election in 2000. The media need to be reined in. I don't know what we can do to convince them that their job is objective reporting (unless they clearly identify their biases), but the current propaganda disguised as news attitude in most major newsrooms is unacceptable. The Press' job is to honestly report- not to work as the Goebbels Ministry in support of the Democratic Party. When will the American people wake up and realize just how corrupt the media really is?

The only bright spot in the day yesterday was the Texas population's rebuke to activist judges, taking the power to define marriage out of the Judiciary's hands by adding a state constitutional amendment making gay 'marriage' illegal. Not that I have anything against the gay movement, but I do believe that the people (or their elected representatives), and not a bunch of unelected judges, should make decisions of this magnitude.

Hat tip to Matt Drudge.

Tuesday, November 08, 2005

Does Lightning Strike Twice?

Maybe it does in the world of personal computing. It is clear that the behemoth of Redmond has won the overall operating system war, with a virtual monopoly on the operating systems of the world's PCs. However, Apple, despite its failure to win the intial battle, may be sneaking back in. As Paul Andrews, a columnist for the Seattle Times writes today regarding the Windows-to-Mac switching,

How much switching is going on? Commenting on Microsoft's recent quarterly earnings report, some analysts speculated the Redmond giant might be losing market share to Apple.

This would be a Good Thing. We are all aware of Microsoft's predatory business practices and almost insatiable deisre to win over all users, whatever their OS so as to be unchallenged. On that note, I was saddened to hear the announcement of a Windows-based Treo OS. THis led to the realization that Palm Computing has lost the PDA wars to Microsoft as well, though I predicted such a result when I worked for Palm some years ago. Palm simply didn't have the management vision and were too obsessed with bottom line to beat the Gates machine. Perhaps they may stage an Apple-like resurgeance as well, but I think it is unlikely. Palm squandered their once-impressive lead in the PDA market and their management was always too pedantic even to realize what kind of product they were trying to sell.

Microsoft has made themselves many enemies, though, despite their virtually unchallenged dominance of the corporate PC market. Their multitudinous security hoels have spawned an entirely new industry, and their injudicious pricing and lack of response to their customers have led alternatives such as Linux, despite its unfriendly interface, to become viable threats to the monpoly- especially on the server side of things. And Apple itself, with its powerful and far more intuitive interface, has made huge strides in reliability and pricing- once the bane of the Apple faithful. Then there has been Microsoft's inability to match Apple's innovation. The new Windows OS, intended to replace XP and codenamed Longhorn, has been promised (in other words, has been in vaporware mode) since at least 2000, while Apple has made OSX into what it was always promised to be- a truly robust and powerful operating system.

On a historical note, since we are speaking of Apple's once-endemic quality problems, I remember the troubled and overpriced 5300 PowerBooks and Performas of the late 1990s with a shudder. My own reliable PowerBook 180c was finally retired from its place as my server (running KanjiTalk 7.5.3 with AppleShare Server 3.0- yes I am a geek) to a well-deserved place in my PowerBook Museum, replaced first by the marvelous Pismo (PowerBook G3 Firewire) and then by the 12-inch PowerBook G4 and the Mac Mini on which I am writing this piece as I speak.

So keep on switching, PC-users. Keep on switching to the Mac. Think Different, remember? It's 1984 all over again! And maybe...just maybe lightning DOES strike twice.

Border Security

When ladies who ought to be enjoying their privacy (and their grandchildren) at home are forced to stand guard at the border because their elected representatives are too cowardly to stand up for their constituents as opposed to a group of illegal aliens who have a loud-mouthed lobby, then things have truly gone the wrong way in this great country of ours.

It is every country's right to police its own sovereign borders. It is every country's right to determine for itself what kind and how many immigrants shall be admitted, without blustering threats from incompetent neighboring politicians. And we have a clear and present warning of the dangers inherent in surrendering to the multicultural, illegal-alien lobby in the French riots. Yet, the United States still doesn't seem to understand the stakes.

The Washington Times reported today that down on the US/Mexican border, that the so-called 'Granny Brigade', is working the border due to the inattention and uncaring attitude taken by their own elected representatives in Washington as well as the state capitols. One of them, a naturalized American citizen, made what is probably the best case. She noted the unfairness of forcing legal immigrants to go through the convoluted processes preferred by the INS, while illegal aliens are allowed to break the law and are then rewarded by amnesties.

Speaking as one married to a legal immigrant, and having been through the legalization process, I complteely agree. Why are we penalizing our legal immigrants, who quite often come with skills we can use, in favor of people who don't even respect us enough to obey our laws? Despite the noisy shouts of the multiculturalist lobby, there is a huge difference between legal and illegal immigration. Check the words 'legal' versus 'illegal'. And when will Washington and the affected local and state governments wake up? When San Francisco or Los Angeles erupts into the kind of riots that Paris is dealing with now? When the Hispanic version of the KKK (MECHA) declares open warfare on all those not in 'La Raza' in their bid to establish their Azatlan Empire pipe-dream? Hopefully, we will wake up before that comes to pass. Are you listening, Washington?

More Plagiarism From the Left...

Democrats have a long history of plagiarism, forgery and other dirty tricks. Joseph Bottum, the Books and Arts editor for the The Weekly Standard proved conclusively in 2004 that Lawrence Tribe, a frequent Democratic apologist and leading intellectual light on the Left, plagiarized a good part of his 1985 book God Save This Honorable Court from the earlier work Justices and Presidents by Henry Abraham. Another Harvard Law professor, Charles Ogletree, who was one of Anita Hill's lawyers during the Clarence Thomas hearings, recently admitted that he also plagiarized a number of paragraphs in his recent book All Deliberate Speed. And of course it has been known for some time that Martin Luther King, one of the Democratic Party's icons, plagiarized a good portion of his undergraduate and graduate works, including his doctoral dissertation! If you are in doubt, more evidence can be found at the Martin Luther King Plagiarism Page.

On the forgery side, who can forget Dan Rather and Mary Mapes' attempt to destroy President Bush's re-election using forged papers? Despite the obvious non-authenticity of the papers they came up with- and despite Mapes' five-year search for a way to destroy Bush (gee- can anyone imagine a media organization allowing one of their 'news'persons to spend five years looking for a documents that would aid a story making a Democrat look less-than-stellar???), Rather and Mapes are still in 'fake-but-accurate' denial.

And on the general dirty tricks side, the Democrats have long been known as the machine party- a party whose Illinois/Cook County organization stole the 1960 Presidential election from Richard Nixon, and whose operatives are currently in court responding to allegations of vandalism that may have been one of the many Democratic plans to keep Republicans from vvoting in 2004. In addition, there were also many documented instances of Democratic illegal vote-gathering and intimidation in the last Presidential election.

Now comes new evidence of the appalling lack of ethics on the Democratic side of the aisle. The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports that a letter regarding the impending confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito sent by Representative Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) to Senator Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) was plagiarized almost entirely from a blogger named Nathan Newman. This kind of behavior would have gotten a university student dismissed in my day. Hopefully there will be some kind of electoral retribution for the politician in question.

However, we are talking about Democrats. As the party of totalitarianism (based on their well-documented support for Stalin, Mao, the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, and Kim Jong Il) they have learned well the totalitarian adage first propagated by Adolf Hitler that "people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one". The quote is taken from a wartime report prepared by the US Office of Strategic Services (OSS), courtesy of Wikipedia. And because Democrats are the party whose ends justify the means, I suppose we should not expect any such retribution- at least not from thier party drones. We can only hope that the majority of the electorate can see past their spoken words of honey to the hypocrisy at their cores. After all, when you are a Democrat/Leftist, whose superior intellect mustn't be denied its chance to lead the little people, anything is fair in pursuit of winning over those same little people whose votes you so badly need. Isn't it?

Hat tip to Matt Drudge.

Monday, November 07, 2005

Hanson on Europe

One of my favorite former professors, Dr. Victor Davis Hanson, a specialist in ancient military history, with whom I was fortunate enough to study during my undergraduate years at California State University, Fresno, was on Hugh Hewitt's radio show earlier this evening talking about the European riots, and providing context, for those who are not too enamored of the socialist nightmare that Europe has become. He had himself just returned from the Continent, and spent an evening in Paris prior to returning to the United States.

For those who may be unaware of Professor Hanson, he is a renowned expert on the ancient culture of Classical Greece, with particular expertise in the Peloponnesian War (431-402 BC) between the rival city-states of Athens and Sparta. In addition to his sterling academic credentials, Dr. Hanson is also a working farmer in the Central Valley of California, with a keen understanding of the problems faced by family farms in today's era. He has published extensively, and has garnered a well-deserved reputation as an expert on contemporary political and military affairs as well.

The full transcript of Dr. Hanson's talk is posted on the fine Radioblogger site for your perusal. I highly recommend that you go over there and read the whole thing. Professor Hanson's commentary on current affairs can also be found on a weekly basis at National Review Online, and also on his own site, VDH's Private Papers.

Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds.

Chinese Entrepreneurship

I observe that Chinese government control on entrepreneurship apparently knows very few bounds. Breitbart News reported today that apparently a Chinese company has been shut down for selling land on the Moon! I seem to recall that there is at least one other company doing the same thing, that has encountered no governmental opposition from our own government (despite the 'fascist' Administration of George W. Bush), but apparently the Communist Chinese government doesn't want private companies selling land that the Chinese government might one day want for itself.

On the other hand, Chinese economic progress- especially in the development of military systems- apparently is still dependent on stealing secrets from other countries. As reported by The Washington Times, four people were arrested in Los Angeles and charged with stealing military secrets from the United States. Apparently all the secrets Bill Clinton's Administration gave China weren't enough. Hmm, I wonder what China could possibly want with those high-tech weapons systems? And their burgeoning and highly government-subsidized space program? Maybe they have designs on the Moon? Does make one think, does it not?

In any event, these events would seem to indicate that our Intelligence services should probably be keeping a close eye on China, despite the bleatings of our cowardly Liberal Left and their naive and suicidal belief that if America just unilaterally disarms, so will everyone else. I wonder if Tibet or Taiwan would agree with that assessment. And I wonder if the current anti-war movement, like those in the Cold War, is also financed (at least partially) by the Communists?

Hat tip to Matt Drudge.

Friday, November 04, 2005

Isn't It Interesting...

...that when a fringe group of so-called 'Christians' spark a massacre in a southwestern Texas town, the press is quick to publicize their religion as Christianity. If a well-known Christian minister vocalizes some comtroversial sentiments the international Press immediately points to his religious affiliation. The MSM almost never has anything positive to say about Christians in general and expecially Christian conservatives.

However, when a major Muslim holiday (Ramadan) ends and mostly Muslim immigrants riot for two weeks (so far) in the suburbs of Paris, the Press is extremely reluctant to admit their religion, even though a reading of the article in question provides plenty of evidence as to their religion as being Islam. When Christian schoolgirls are brutally murdered in a 50% Christian province in Indonesia, the Press does everything possible to ignore the religion of the attackers- despite the clear evidence in their own article that the attackers are almost certainly Muslim. And when a pair of black Americans go on a shooting rampage, and one of them has converted to Islam and has a Muslim name John Muhammed, the Press once again tries to downplay the Islamic connection as much as possible. The MSM even tried to whip up sympathy for the spoiled Marin County rich-kid brat John Walker Lindh, who managed to get himself arrested in Afghanistan and should have been executed for treason.

I touched on this in a post a few days ago. Why won't the Press admit that their much-advertised image of Islam as a "religion of peace" is both historically and currently an untrue representation of this warlike, backward and highly expansionist religion? Why doesn't the Press publicize the brutalities of Muslims towards Christians and their own as much as they do Christians or Jews?

Do you disbelieve me regarding the supposed brutality of our Middle Eastern foes? The perhaps you might want to see the Middle East Chronicles courtesy of Victor Davis Hanson's Private Papers. Then ask yourself why the Press appears to want to propagate falsehoods, while simultaneously and publicly supporting those who are doing their best to suppress Christianity? Just curious...

1720 UPDATE: I had not had a chance to check the blogosphere today, and just noticed that Captain's Quarters had posted on this at 0459 AM this morning, therefore, a very belated hat tip to Captain Ed Morrissey.

Press Bullying

Posting has been kind of light this week due to business and personal commitments. However, I noticed that the Press, depsite their public claims to be just one of the folks, still think that they can do things that an ordinary person cannot.

According to Matt Drudge, Judge Alito's 90-year-old mother is being harassed by legions of press personnel in attempts to gain interviews. It seems to me that Judge Alito's mother, who is by no stretch of the imagination a public person, might want to have recourse to legal assistance.

The press definitely should not have a dispensation to harass and otherwise torture ordinary people just becasue they might be related to someone who may be in the news. Judge Altio himself meets the definition of news-worthy and is a public person - after all, he is being proposed for a very important position. His mother is not. Why do reporters think that laws against harassment do not apply to them? Maybe we need to re-think what privileges reporters should have vis-a-vis other ordinary citizens. And these are the same people who are pressing for more special privileges in the form of a shield law????

Via the Drudge Report.

Saturday, October 29, 2005

Religion & the MSM

When someone makes a remark that is less-than-flattering of Muslims, there is an immediate reaction from dozens of Muslim organizations, amplified by the MSM. Even when Muslims do something terrible, as happened on September 11, 2001 and many times before and thereafter (Daniel Pearl, Leon Klinghofer, the Russian schoolchildren, van Gogh, etc) the US media call for 'tolerance and understanding', and downplays the terrorist acts. There have been columns of newsprint agonizing over the post-9/11 'threatening' atmosphere toward Muslims in the United States and the Western world. However, it occurs to me that while we should definitely not encourage religious persecution, why aren't we worried about religious persecution when it is aimed at non-Muslims?

Case in point: Today the Sydney Morning Herald's online edition came out with a report that three Christian schoolgirls in Indonesia were beheaded in a brutal attack. Since beheadings have been for quite some time the favorite killing method of Muslims, and since the anti-Christian violence in the province of Sulawesi has been going on even after a cease-fire was negotiated in 2002, I wonder if this could be more of the same. Yet the US (and much of the rest of the Western world's) media, so obsessed with anti-Mulim acts here (many of which have turned out to be fakes perpetrated by Muslims themselves), have appeared to ignore this. Even the Sydney Morning Herald doesn't really explore the possibility that the attackers were Muslim, though the story itself leaves little doubt that they were. Nice brave Muslims, attacking innocent schoolgirls. Want to try that on one of our Marines, bullyboy? Of course not. The Marine might fight back- or more likely kill the S.O.B.

Hey MSM. There is a lot of anti-Christian persecution out there. In fact, most totalitarian states out there (China, Burma, North Korea, virtually any Muslim state) tend to be seriously opposed to Christianity.

Now I wonder why that is? It is interesting, since throughout history, Christianity has been a bottom-up religion. It has never been imposed on people by force. Constantine made it the official religion of the Roman Empire, but he didn't do it with an army- he merely acknowledged that it was now a mainstream religion. Even the Crusades were not an attempt to impose Christianity by force on Muslims. They were, if you will recall your history, called fby Pope Urban in 1095 on receipt of the news that Jerusalem had been brutally sacked and taken by the Muslims- just as so many other socieities had before them. In fact, it is Islam, not Christianity, that has a reputation of spreading by the edge of the sword. Ask the vanished cultures of North Africa. And today, the Sudan's Christians are being slowly and deliberately eliminated as quickly as possible, in the Darfur area, it appears.

So I ask the MSM. Could you possibly mention that once in a while? Otherwise, it might seem as though you didn't care about Christians being persecuted. Unless of course you really do enjoy seeing Christians persecuted and murdered? Just wondering...

Hat tip to Matt Drudge.

UPDATE: I have been cruising the blogosphere, and I see that both Captain's Quarters and Michelle Malkin have noted this new Muslim atrocity as well- with suitable commentary.

Friday, October 28, 2005

Thoughts on the Left

I have been thinking about the Left's stubborn refusal to ally themselves wwith their own country in most conflicts, and their equally stubborn refusal to support war when the national interests off their country are engaged. They seemingly only support the use of troops in earthquakes, tsunamis or other disaster relief or possibly in areas where the national intersts of the United States are undoubtedly not in play- like Clinton's Kosovo operation.

I think I have finally figured it out. Lefties are basically cowards. They are very good at ankle-biting, but they are not very good at leading or actually putting their country's best interests ahead of their own. Why is this? I belive it may be because so many of them came of age believing that they were the end-all of existence, and if they put their country's interests first and admitted that there are some things worth fighting for, they might actually have to go do the fighting, which might actually bring the risk of death. And these Lefties are all much too important to die, don't you know?

The Left's sense of self-importance, coupled with their physical cowardice, is the reason the lies at the core of their anti-war, anti-American stance, in my opinion. Of course, they have never given much thought to what might happen if these folks they have spent the last fifty or a hundred years encouraging and covertly supporting actually win. What would the US be like today if we have lost the Cold War? What would this country be like if the Islamofascists (regrettably cheered on by most of the supposedly "modeate" Muslim world) win? Where would these Lefties be if their sweetheart Castro in Cuba was El Presidente here? Have they considered that? Have you?

Anti-War Patriots?

I observe that since more than 2000 US soldiers have now lost their lives in the ongoing campaign in Iraq, the anti-war Left led by the American Friends Service Committee (ever noticed how Lefties like naming their groups 'Committees'- reminds them of the good old days of the Bolshevik Committees of Three, I guess) saw the need to commemorate the 2000th death with a party, which duly occurred on October 26, 2005.

Never mind that more US Marines died in roughly 30 days at Iwo Jima (more than three times as many- 6821 to be exact, with over 20000 injured) than soldiers and Marines combined have died in almost four years in Iraq. On a side note, one does wonder how the mainstream media, with their fixation on casualties, would have covered the month-long campaign of Iwo Jima, had today's media been in existence back then. Thank goodness that the media during World War II was actually pro-American, not anti-American like their modern counterparts. But then understanding context would require knowledge of REAL history- something most Lefties are incapable of.

At least two conservative blogs, little green footballs and Michelle Malkin noted the unseemly glee on the part of the Left at this event. Needing to maintain their pretense of "support the troops, not the war" justification, the Leftie blogs in response protested that these commemorations would actually be very solemn events- no glee allowed.

Well, well. A photographer rightly took these Leftie protestations with a large grain of salt, and decided to check out the San Francisco and Berkeley events. His results are quite shocking, as he clearly shows the glee and happiness pervading both events. So it would seem that despite their hypocritical protests to the contrary, the Left was indeed pleased at the 2000th death in Iraq. He notes that the MSM, although corporeally present, was too busy taking pictures of candles, and taping protest singer wannabes to notice the unholy glee, happiness and the party atmosphere on the part of most of those present.

I ask myself, why are the Left so pleased that 2000 Americans have died trying to build a free society where none existed before? Could it be that they are actually AGAINST freedom? Could it be that they actually LIKE it when Americans with whom they disagree die? Could it be they actually WANT their own country to lose this war- even though our Muslim extremist enemies would have much less tolerance for their little agenda than any single one of their countrymen whom they so despise? Just asking....

Thursday, October 27, 2005

Michigan Anti-Patriotism

The state of Michigan has long been in the forefront of the anti-American movement. The Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), one of the major anti-American leftwing groups of the 1960s, was hatched at least partly on its campus. At this point, we should advise the reader that the SDS, along with other groups of that era, were heavily Communist in nature, who felt more loyalty towards the Soviet Union than toward the United States. As Todd Gitlin, one of the SDS' leaders, admitted in his book The Sixties, a great number of the SDS members were those young men and women who were brought up by covertly Communist parents, who weer trained in organization and who were hoping to spread Communist rule to the United States. Therefore, I consider the SDS a brand of fifth-element subversion, if not outright treason, considering at least some of their financing also came from the USSR.

Today, Michigan's anti-patriotic nature was once again bared for public display. the Florida TV station WFTV's website reports that a woman was actually fired for missing work the day after seeing her husband of 22 years off to Iraq. This despite telling her employers that she might not be able to make it in to work the day after seeing him off, and there being apparently no problem with that initially by her employer. However, instead of calling her to come in, the company sent her a note telling her to collect her belongings- she had been summarily terminated. This seems outrageous to me on the face of things. Is there no patriotism left in Michigan?

JKF once famously said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but rather ask what you can do for your country." I doubt there are many Democrats or Leftists that still subscribe to that ideal. All in all, this is merely more evidence of the People's Republic of Michigan's lack of willingness to put Country ahead of Leftist Interests, I guess...

Hat tip to The Drudge Report.

Who's On Next?

I ingested the news of Harriet Miers' withdrawal from consideration as a Supreme Court justice reported here by Breitbart, with little regret. As much as I dislike the politics that forced her withdrawal, I also had serious reservations regarding her judicial qualifications.

I am not wedded to the idea that any Supreme Court nominee must be a judge, or even a lawyer. I think the past lawyerly actvism of our Supremes has gotten us into a very difficult situation, where we have justices looking outside the Constitution to justify their activist and unconstitutional decisions. However, Miers herself did not inspire much confidence on my part either- not just because of her lack of judicial experiecne, but becasue she is such an unknown. Stealth nominations have not worked out well for Republicans, and I would urge the President on his next nomination to go with someone who is a true conservative- a la the Ginsburg principle consistently utilized on the Left side of the aisle. Why are conservatives so afraid of what a bunch of ignorant and heavily biased media monkeys think? If presented well to the people, the media can do nothing more than snarl impotently- and last time I checked, conservatives outnumber liberals and lefties by a considerable percentage.

Mr. President, there are a number of well-qualified potential nominees out there- Eugene Volokh, Glenn Reynolds, Janice Brown, Michael Luttig, and others who momentarily escape my memory. Please select one of those, and let us begin removing the Court from its current status as Self-Appointed Arbiter of All Things to its traditional role of reserved originalism and strict constructionism. The Democrats and their rabid sponsors of the Left may not like it, but who has been winning elections- Republicans or Democrats? To the victor the spoils, I believe. You ran on a promise to fill any Court vacancies with strict contructionists. Fulfill that promise, Mr. President. Fulfill that promise!

Hat tip to Matt Drudge.

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

Happy Birthday, US Naval Airpower!

Brief post. Great significance. According to the Official Site of the US Navy, today is the eighty-fourth anniversary of the first successful launch of a seaplane using a compressed-air-powered catapult. This event occurred on October 26 in the year 1921. Exactly one year to the day later, Lieutenant Commander Godfrey de Chevalier made the first successful landing of a plane aboard a warship, landing safely aboard the USS Langley (CV1), while she was underway off Cape Henry, Virginia.

So why is this important? Well, because without naval airpower, we would have decidedly lost the Second World War and would proabbly be speaking either Russian or Japanese today. Or maybe we would be lucky and be speaking German. You liberal antiwar folks might want to think about that the next time before you mouth off one of your inane "War never solved anything" slogans.

I have a better slogan. Except for ending Slavery, Fascism, Nazism and Communism, war has never solved anything. The slogan is courtesy of the Protest Warriors. I highly recommend going to check out their site for more great pro-American signs, banners and news updates of their encounters with the ignorant Left.

Nude Nazi (Chinese) Girls in Hong Kong!

It seems that it is not all flowers and comradeship for the peace-loving Commies ruling in China. According to the Asian Sex Gazette, there has developed a recent craze for all things Nazi in the Land of the People's Republic.

Whereas our MSM Press and the Loony Left uses Nazi symbols and terms as derogatory references intended to shame Republicans (and which only serve to show their own unreality and hypocrisy- can anyone say Klan Kleagle Robert Byrd?), the Chinese apparently have decided that Nazification is a Good Thing!.

According to the ASG, Chinese in Hong Kong seem to see Nazis as very desireable beings to emulate- especially as their warlike vehicles were mostly made by Mercedes and Porsche- two brands in extreme demand amongst wealthy Chinese today as well, as is pointed out by the ASG report. However, the English-language media in Hong Kong, as ASG also points out, was apparently outraged by the publication. But so far no heads have rolled. On the other hand, this does say something about how differently Nazis are viewed in the East and the West, doesn't it?

In Japan, there are pornographic films frequently using Japanese Imperial soldiers and occasionally Nazis as the bad guys. These films usually involve many naked actresses being raped and killed- rarely with any retribution shown for the murderers. Now in China, we see that it seems to be OK to pose a nude Chinese hottie with Nazi regalia and a toy action figure made up to look like the German tank genius General Guderian.

Maybe the post-war re-education campaign needs to be re-visited? And I regret to say that our own Democratic Party might be well-advised to attend as well, seeing as how they appear to have a deep misunderstanding of the differences between Nazis and members of the Republican Party. And a lack of understanding regardin the power of rhetoric as well. Are you listening, Since the Left has little understanding or knowledge of history (other than their re-written version) I would remind these ignorant idiots that NAZI was short for National Socialist- and in their policies much more related to the Left than the Right. Oh, by the way, the Communists of whatever national origin are a brand of Socialists too. And who is responsible for most of the great massacres and genocides of the 20th Century? Hint: It isn't the Right. And certainly not the Republican Party, however much the Lefties wish it were. Just a thought....

Shashinshu Girls on the Web!

Well, when Walmart launched their blog, I thought I had seen everything in the blogosphere. However, thanks to an emailed tip from my good friend Mentok, I have now seen something even more entertaining. It appears that there is a blog entirely devoted to Japanese shashinshu girls!

To educate those unaware of this phenomenon, shashinshu girls are usually either young , attractive starlets beginning to break into the entertainment business, or established stars in need of more publicity!. They uncover themselves (though never entirely) for the weekly magazines and other less-reputable publications, and often publish photo books known as shashinshu (写真集), thus their designation as shashinshu girls.

The Cute Cosplay Angels blog appears to be a photoblog devoted entirely to these starlets, and is liberally covered with photographical evidence of these delectable young ladies in minimal attire. I have added it to my personal list of recommended blogs, though i would recommend caution before viewing. It is not precisely work- and girlfriend-safe, though entirely lacking in nudity. To paraphrase the great Joe Bob Briggs, "Much enjoyment, no breasts (except covered), shashinshu-girl-fu. Four stars. Joe Bob says check it out!"

Hat tip to Mentok, though he does not appear to have this on his blog as of yet.

10/27/05: 1044AM UPDATE: He does now...

Monday, October 24, 2005

Retief Revisited

I was reminded today about some of the classic Keith Laumer Retief of the CDT stories. To this reader's delight, at least some of them have been posted at Baen Books Online Library. And you can get at least one of the collections, Retief!, through

For those unfamiliar with the series, it follows the career of Jame Retief, a (mostly) junior member of the CDT (Corps Diplomatique Terrestrienne), who is linguistically talented, physically gifted, intelligent, has little patience for fools, and rarely follows procedures to get the job done. For all these perceived faults, he does usually manage to succeed in whatever mission was asigned him, though his superiors do their best to deny him credit wherever possible (and in some cases promote those who do their best to work against their own Corps best interests).

As one of the reviewers noted, Retief took on PC (the dreaded Political Correctness) long before most people even realized it was a problem. Keith Laumer created one of the most memorable and believable heroes in the pantheon of science fiction. And he managed to do it with a nice mix of humor and adventure, maintaining his tone, something few other writers were able to master. Hat tip to the Instapundit.