Ohio Rep Shows Students Porn, Media Omits Party

It's time for yet another edition of Name That Party! According to NBC station WKYC, Ohio State Representative Matt Barrett was giving a lecture to some high school students when he inserted a memory stick and showed them a nude picture. Guess which party he belongs to? Supplementary credit will be given for guessing if the story included that affiliation anywhere.

Regarding the actual incident, WKYC reported that,

The school's technology director looked at the memory stick and determined that it had a directory of nude images.

Barrett tells Channel 3 News that he reported the incident to the school principal as well as the Superintendent. Norwalk Police were called to the scene as well and eventually the Ohio State Highway Patrol.

Barrett says the stick was a gift and he has no idea where the images came from but hopefully the Norwalk Police or OSP will have some answers for him within a few days as to what caused the glitch and where the image originated.

However, nowhere in the story is Barrett's party affiliation identified. I was able to find Barrett's party affiliation (he's a Democrat) by performing a Google search. Keep in mind that when Republican elected representatives engage in any kind of unbecoming conduct, it is splashed all over the front pages with their party prominently included, yet incidents like this one sseem to receive entirely different treatment. Media bias? Oh, THAT media bias. Hat tip to NewsBusters reader David Anasco. Cross-posted on NewsBusters.

AP Ignores China's Occupation of Tibet

The media is very pleased to report about the United States' occupation of Iraq, and they never seem to tire of insinuating that it is both unpopular and illegal. However, they seem to be strangely shy of reporting on other occupations, which are both more long-standing and of a imperialistic nature.

A case in point is the Associated Press story today on President Bush's meeting with the Dalai Lama, the exiled god-king of Tibet. Tibet, a historically independent kingdom, has been under a Chinese military occupation since 1950. Yet the AP chooses not to mention any of this in their report, which instead concentrates on the Chinese outrage that President Bush would meeet with the leader of an occupied state. The AP wrote in their second paragraph that,

Both Bush and members of Congress - who are presenting him with the prestigious Congressional Gold Medal on Wednesday - are stirring anger in China by honoring the Dalai Lama, the exiled spiritual leader of Tibet's Buddhists.

"We solemnly demand that the U.S. cancel the extremely wrong arrangements," said Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi in Beijing. "It seriously violates the norm of international relations and seriously wounded the feelings of the Chinese people and interfered with China's internal affairs."

At the White House, presidential spokesman Tony Fratto said: "We understand the concerns of the Chinese." But he also said Bush always has attended congressional award presentation ceremonies, has met with the Dalai Lama several times before and had no reason not to meet with him again.

Although was very diligent in reporting China's anger at the US agreement to receive the Dalai Lama, the AP seems much less interested in telling their readers about China's occupation of Tibet, against the wishes of many, if not most, of the Tibetans. The AP's only mention of the fact that China's military currently occupies Tibet comes in the very last paragraph, in which they write,

The Dalai Lama is immensely popular in Tibet, which China has ruled with a heavy hand since its communist-led forces invaded in 1951. He has been based in India since fleeing his Himalayan homeland in 1959 amid a failed uprising against Chinese rule.

It seems that the AP reserves its disapproval for invasions carried out by the United States in pursuit of defending itself against Islamic terror. Invasions carried out by Communist countries for purely imperialistic reassons do not merit such disapproval.

On a related note, I am still waiting for the AP or any other major media organ to discuss the long-standing Syrian occupation of Lebanon in anything close to the terms of disapproval they use for talking about Iraq and/or Israel's former occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. But then to expect that wouldd be to require journalists to exercise consistency and objectivity- traits which I fear are a lost art among most current practicioners of the journalistic profession. Cross-posted on NewsBusters.

Murderers Aren't Cool

Murderers are not cool, though much of the Left does not appear to know that. Leftists are always happy to idolize Fidel Castro, Mao Tse-tung, Josef Stalin, Pol Pot and others of their ilk. However the most irritating of thee lionized murderers has to be the late, unlamented Che Guevara, who finally met justice on October 9, 1969 in Bolivia. For some mysterious reason, many young, ignorants seem to think wearing the visage of this mass murderer on their T-shirts and other articles of clothing is somehow cool and stylish. This is about as logical as the equally ignorant middle class youths who believe that emulating black prison fashion, complete with its baggy pants and sideways hats is somehow the height of style. The prevalence of Guevara's face on the clothing of the inhabitants of 'progressive' places like San Francisco causes me to wonder whether they actually know who this butcher was, or if they are merely indoctrinated fools who do know and are advocating replicating Guevara's acts of mass murder upon their countrymen.

However, since the fortieth anniversary of his death passed unremembered here at StoneHeads, I decided to follow the advice of the Power Line crew and join the Facebook group Che Guevara Was a Murderer and Your T-shirt Is Not Cool. I highly recommend this site for all who actually know the history of Guevara's bloody passage through Latin America. As for the useful idiots who wear Guevara's face on their attire, they demonstrate merely that ignorance is to be found among the most unlikely people. Why Americans (who are privileged to live in one of the most free and wealthiest places on Earth) would want to idolize a murderer who desperately wanted to replace their freedom with a particularly repressive form of dictatorship (also known as Communism) escapes me, but as I said, ignorance and foolishness are no strangers to those who should know better. One has only to look at the modern Democratic Party's' embrace of Islamic barbarians to appreciate this fact.

Two pictures of Guevara following his execution can be found on the site as well. I paste the link to the first picture here and the second picture's link here. Be warned, it lacks the glamor so many young fools seem to associate with the Cuban Butcher. But it may disillusion those who seem to think that Marxist revolutionaries somehow are glamorous folks. I hate to pour cold water on your fantasies, but revolutionaries like Guevara are in fact murderous thugs, and we can only hope that they end like he did- unglamorously lined up against a wall for the firing squad.

Goodbye to Grizzly Flats

The Grizzly Flats Railroad is soon to be no more. For those who are unaware of this unique peice of Americana, Grizzly Flats was a private narrow-guage railroad built and maintained by Walt Disney animator Ward Kimball. From 1942 until Ward's death in 2002, the Grizzly Flats Railroad ran over a 500-foot stretch of track in Kimball's three-acre backyard. The main engine used was a restored Baldwin steam locomotive built in 1881 named the Emma Nevada, which was donated to the Orange Empire Railway museum in Perris, California in 2001.

Ward Kimball was also the founder and leader of the famouse jazz band the Firehouse Five Plus Two, and the backyard railway housed for many years the firehouse wherein were parked the antique fire engines he bought for the band's many public performances.

However, it appears that the famed railway will soon be no more. According to Steve Hulett's The Animation Guild blog, Grizzly Flats is being slowly removed. Hulett reports that the track has already been removed and while Kimball's famous depot station will be preserved on the Sonoma estate of John Lasseter (Chief Creative Officer of Pixar Animation Studios), the old firehouse where the Firehouse Five's fire equipment lived and the engine house where the Grizzly Flats rolling stock was stored will both be demolished. The Firehouse Five fire equipment was donated to the Travel Town museum in Griffith Park, Los Angeles. Hulett quotes the Los Angeles Times as saying of the railway,

It was short in length — but long in its reach.

The Grizzly Flats Railroad's steam engines traveled for 70 years along a 500-foot-long stretch of rails next to the San Gabriel home of Betty and Ward Kimball.

Along the way, the Kimballs' picturesque narrow-gauge line helped inspire Walt Disney to build the famous passenger train system that circles Disneyland.

Now, though, its locomotives, vintage cars and caboose have been hauled away, and workers have finished pulling out the steel rails and wooden ties. Soon, the antique-looking Grizzly Flats train depot will be dismantled. The old train barn and firehouse will be demolished.

"It's an emotional thing. But it has to be done," said John Kimball, the couple's 66-year-old son...

It is truly the end of an era. Grizzly Flats will live on in the permanent exhibit at the Orange Empire Railway Museum, but the railway that sparked so many memories is gone. I never got the opportunity to meet Ward Kimball or to ride on his famed railway, but he provided much inspiration and his railway will be sorely missed, as will his many other acheivements. Goodbye, Grizzly Flats!

USS Cole Anniversary: Media Silent

On this day in the year 2000, the guided missile destroyer USS Cole was attacked by Islamic terrorists associated with Osama bin Laden's al-Quaeda group. Today is the seventh anniversary of that attack. Seventeen American sailors were killed and thirty-eight injured in the attack which severely damaged the ship. Yet not a single major media organ has reported this so far.

Attacking a ship of war has been long viewed as an act of war. The most recent example occurred in 1968 when North Korea attacked the USS Pueblo. To our national shame, the Pueblo is still in the hands of the North Koreans. A rather more forceful response occurred in 1941, when Japan attacked the US Pacific Fleet at anchor in Pearl Harbor.

However, then-President Bill Clinton did not respond to the attack, emboldening the Islamists who viewed the United States as a paper tiger. The attack on the Cole was one of a series of attacks on Americans throughout the decade of the 1990s to which the United States failed to respond. This eventually led to al-Quaeda and its allies decided to attack the Twin Towers in 2001. Unfortunately for them, President George W. Bush took a different view, correctly deciding to respond with military force. Since 2001, there have been no further successful attacks on American soil, though we remain engaged in a military offensive against the Islamic terrorists.

However, despite the significance of today's date, not a single major media organ has chosen to cover it. Why? CNN felt that news about Britney Spears' thoughts on her children were important enough to put on their front page, but there is no mention of the attack on the Cole. MSNBC has former Vice-President Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize3 plastered all over the front page, but there is no mention of the anniversary of the attack on the Cole. What happened to remembering cowardly attacks on Americans and avenging them? The attack on the Maine sparked a war with Spain. the attack on Pearl harbor sparked US involvement in World War II- a war that ended with then unconditional surrender of our opponents. Yet not a single media organ seems to care that Americans were attacked and killed.

Does our media not care? They are assiduous in reporting deaths of Muslims at the hands of Americans- even when those deaths did not occur, or when those killed were actually terrorists (see Haditha). Yet the anniversary of an unprovoked attack on a US warship that resulted in the deaths of American military personnel does not even warrant a mention on the anniversary. I can only gather that to the US media, Muslim terrorist lives are more important than American military lives. Cross-posted on NewsBusters.

CORRECTION: I initially typed 'North Vietnam' instead of 'North Korea' in describing the 1968 attack on the Pueblo. It was North Korea, not Vietnam, that attacked and seized the Pueblo. Thanks to numerous commenters for pointing out the initial error.

Pot To Kettle- You're Black!

According to al-Reuters news agency, former President Jimmy Carter called current Vice-President Richard Cheney a disaster for the United States". Carter was speaking in Washington DC, to the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). Reuters quoted Carter as saying,

"He's a militant who avoided any service of his own in the military and he has been most forceful in the last 10 years or more in fulfilling some of his more ancient commitments that the United States has a right to inject its power through military means in other parts of the world," Carter told the BBC World News America in an interview to air later on Wednesday.

"You know he's been a disaster for our country," Carter said. "I think he's been overly persuasive on President George Bush and quite often he's prevailed."

Asked to respond, Cheney refused to lower himself to Carter's level, responding through spokesperson Megan Mitchell that "we're not going to engage in this type of rhetoric."

I find this to be appalling and ridiculous at the same time. Considering Carter's record in office, for him to accuse anyone of being a disaster for the United States is the height of idiocy. After all, this is the man who gave away one of the United States' prime security assets in the Panama Canal, who allowed Iranian terrorists to hold American diplomatic and military personnel hostage for over a year, whose weak response to said kidnapping ensured that we now face a theocratic, fundamentalist Iran determined to destroy us, and whose domestic policy nearly crippled the United States economy. Subsequent to being summarily rejected in the 1980 elecetion, Carter has made common cause with such undemocratic, autocratic leaders as Fidel Castro of Cuba, Mahmoud Ahmajedhadi of Iran, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe. He has undermined United States policy and has broken the traditional rule of respect for his successors, issuing derogatory comments about the current President.

Whether or not Richard Cheney is in fact a disaster for the United States can only be judged at a distance, once this Administration is out of office. It is almost impossible to judge a Presidential Administration at close range, though I rather suspect that the Bush Administration will score relatively well once time has had a chance to take effect. History has judged Carter to be a very poor President with reason and perhaps he feels guilty for how badly his term in office appears in restrospect. But that is no excuse to undermine the current Adminstration. Carter has become a national disgrace and the sooner he realizes this and retreats into deserved obscurity, the better this nation will be. Comments like this one are both hilarious considering the issuer's record and appalling for the lack of class it reveals for the commenter and the lack of respect it shows both of the office of President and the current occupant.

Muslims To Christians: Make Peace Or Else

Islam has a long history of imperialism and bloody conquest against non-Islamic cultures. Cases in point include the unprovoked invasion and conquest of the classical Mediterranean cultures (Carthage, Egypt) of North Africa through the sixth and early seventh centuries and the equally unprovoked invasion of Spain in 715. This invasion continued until Charles Martel's victory in 732 at the Battle of Tours halted Islam's attempt to conquer Europe. Other examples include the Mughal conquest of India, the destruction in 1453 of the ancient Christian kingdom of Byzantium (today known as Turkey) despite Byzantium's history of cooperating with Islamic kingdoms and the Ottoman invasion of Europe that ended before the walls of Vienna in 1683. Sandwiched in betweem were many more Muslim invasions of Europe. Compare this with no Christian invasions of native Islamic land (the Crusades did not invade any historically Muslim land- Jerusalem was not historically a Muslim city).

Contrast this bloody march of conquest with Christianity's history- a religion that spread from the slaves through the middle and upper classes and finally came to be the faith of kings. At very few times in Christianity's history can one find examples of conversion by force, and nowhere can Christianity match Islam's bloody record of destroying civilizations and converting entire populations by the sword. Although Christian kings fought viciously against each other, there was never any concerted attempt by the Christian powers to destroy of even invade Islamic heartlands, despite the great provocation given by the repeated Muslim attemtps to conquer Europe. While this was probably due more to the nature of political infighting amongst the Western leaders than anything else, it is significant that no Pope or Emperor ever tried, aside from the Crusades, which wree primarily to aid Byzantium and recapture the holy city of Jerusalem.

With this history, does it not seem strange that 138 leading Islamic scholars have sent a letter pleading for Christians and Muslims to make peace to many leading Christian leaders? According to the United Kingdom's Evening Standard,

Prominent Muslim scholars are warning that the "survival of the world" is at stake if Muslims and Christians do not make peace with each other.
In an unprecedented open letter signed by 138 leading Muslim scholars from every sect of Islam, the Muslims plead with Christian leaders "to come together with us on the common essentials of our two religions."

...

The Muslim scholars state: "As Muslims, we say to Christians that we are not against them and that Islam is not against them - so long as they do not wage war against Muslims on account of their religion, oppress them and drive them out of their homes."
The phrasing has similarities to the New Testament passage: "He that is not with me is against me" - a passage used by President George Bush when addressing a joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11.

The hypocrisy in this letter is towering. Firstly, the Muslim scholars claim if Islam and Christianity do not make peace the "survival of the world is at stake". This sounds suspiciously like a threat to me. Secondly, they claim that Islam is not against Christians. Really? Then why are all the atttacks against Christians, Americans and other non-Islamic peoples always clothed in religious motives. bin Laden and the zealots of al-Quaeda and Hezbollah have never been shy at proclaiming their religious motivation. However, the Muslim scholars pass this point with no comment and proceed to say that "as long as they do not wage war against Muslims on account of their religion..." Did the Muslim scholars somehow miss the fact that the current war, at least according to American leadership, has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam as a whole? American leaders have been careful to state that they are waging war against the miscreants who bombed the World Trade Center and the states who have aided them. This includes Saddam Hussein's Iraq. At no point has any American leader called this war a fight against Islam. It has been called a war on terror and various other names, but never has it been cast as a war against Islam. Only the Islamics we are fighting have cast it in religious terms.

And that brings up a second point. Certain elements of Islam started this war, not the West. The West, in particular the United States, has actually fought for Muslims, both in Bosnia and in the Middle East. US soldiers were stationed in Saudi Arabia at the request of Saudi leadership to protect them against fellow Muslim Saddam Hussein. US soldiers also liberated Kuwait (a Muslim country) from Iraq (another Muslim country) in the First Gulf War. And the United States supported the (Muslim) mujahadeen who helped drive the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan.

To me this smacks of the classic Islamic idea that when one is being defeated, it is acceptable to call for a truce, which should be used to rearm and refresh oneself before continuing the battle. And this seems more evidence that the United States is currently winning the war against Islamic fundamentalism, if leading Islamic scholars are calling for a truce. I hope and trust that the Christian leaders to whom this letter is addressed treat it with the appropriate solemnity- they drop it in the nearest wastebin. I believe that there are essentially only two kinds of peace- the kind of a resounding victory and the kind of defeat and submission. Detente falls into the 'peace through strength' category, as it is enforced by a willingness to fight for one's beliefs. Which kind do we want?

If Islam truly wants peace with Christians, perhaps they could abandon the anti-Christian rhetoric issuing from so many mosques around the world. Perhaps Saudi Arabia could discontinue its sponsorship of the radical, anti-American Wahhabi sect, which preaches violence against America. Perhaps Muslim nations could eliminate their anti-Bible laws, and no longer execute Muslims who wish to convert from their barbarous religion to one that is kinder and gentler. Perhaps Islam could begin an honest debate about how seriously the Koran should be taken. Perhaps Muslim nations should do a better job preventing Muslim fanatics from executing people memerly for the crime of being non-Muslim. Perhaps Islamic nations should actually offer protection to the non-Muslims who live in their midst, instead of encouraging the medievalist who want them dead. And most of all, perhaps Muslim nations can cease their autocratic leadership practices and give their people some real rights, along with disposing of the medieval notion that women are merely baby factories. if the people were to be granted some enlightened leadership, then perhaps the fundamentalists would be less successful in their proselytizing.

Christian nations are perfectly ready to live in peace with Islam. But we are not willing to live in the kind of peace that Islam too often brings- the peace of submission and dhimmitude. If Islam is willing to renounce its violent and imperialist tendencies towards us, we are perfectly happy to live side-by-side. But we will not tolerate any further attempts to conquer us, and Islam has made too many of these attempts for this poor writer to trust them any further than needs be. I can only hope our leaders are similarly wary, for I do not wish to live under sharia. Not now, and not ever.

Atlantic City Mayor Resigns: Media Omit Party Affiliation

It's time for 'Name That Party' again. The besieged mayor of Atlantic City, Robert Levy, resigned today after allegations of claiming false military benefits, according to his lawyer. The lawyer also gave a reason for Levy's disappearance.

Attorney Edwin Jacobs said that the mayor had been undergoing treatment for substance abuse and mental health issues since city officials last heard from him Sept. 26.

However, according to the story in the Los Angeles Times, there were even larger reasons for Levy's disappearance- he was under investigation by Federal officials for falsely claiming military benefits to which he had no right. The Times reported,

Federal officials have been looking into whether Levy, 64, lied about his service in order to increase his veteran's benefits. The mayor was in the Army for 20 years -- serving two tours of duty in Vietnam -- and received numerous medals, awards and citations, Jacobs said.

"The pending investigation has called into question two of those awards, neither of which appear to be supported by an appropriate military order," Jacobs said.

So we have a mayor who is under investigation for claiming false military benefits and who is undergoing substance abuse treatment, yet somehow the media, in this case the LA Times, cannot be bothered to mention the mayor's party affiliation in their entire article on the subject. Hint- he's not a Republican.

Once again, the media has shown their bias. Republicans' party affiliation will be mentioned even in articles where there is clearly no reason, yet a Democrat who commits crimes can be assured of remaining unidentified with the national party. Media bias? Oh, you mean THAT media bias. Cross-posted on NewsBusters.

Belmont Extends Nanny State

Liberals like to claim that the Bush Administration has restricted civil rights, though they are hard-pressed to actually provide any examples of said restrictions. However, when a California city really does infringe upon the civil rights of its citizens, the same liberals are mostly silent.

Belmont, California, a city located slightly south of San Francisco, has just made smoking inside apartments illegal. The local news channel, NBC 11, headlined the article as Belmont Bans Smoking In Some Homes'. And in an entirely approving style, the article reported that,

Thought to be the first of its kind in California, the ordinance declares secondhand smoke a public nuisance and extends the city's current smoking ban to include multi-unit, multi-story residences.

Though Belmont and some other California cities already restrict smoking in multi-unit common areas, Belmont is the first city to extend secondhand smoke regulation to the inside of individual apartment units.

The article was not approviong of the efforts to stop the ban, hinting at a well-organized conspiracy. As the article said,

NBC11 reporter Noelle Walker said three City Council members have received more e-mails about the proposed ban than any other issue ever. Belmont Mayor Coralin Feierbach told NBC11 her mailbox was filled with the hate-filled e-mails.

Upset citizens are comparing the proposed ban to Nazi rules.

"Following in the footsteps of Adolf Hitler with your no public smoking ordinance …," writes one opponent of the ban.

Many of the letters are littered with expletives.

"If America is lucky, someone will cut all of your *** throats," one letter said.

Another letter threatens, "Your friends will get a 747 loaded with fuel…"

The same letter ends with "Have a nice day."

Feierbach believes the strong opposition is part of an organized effort from the pro-smoking site speakeasyforum.com.

Part of the group's mission, according to their Web site, is to provide a forum for smokers to express concerns about, "… discrimination against smokers in all of the many forms that it takes these days."

Isn't it funny how liberals are so approving of young children viewing pornography withn or without their parents' knowledge, and don't seem to have a problem with girls receiving abortions without parental permission, but when it comes to telling others where and when they may smoke, they see no problem with extending their jurisdiction into people's homes.

And the media is at least partly to blame. If they truly were interested in protecting citizens from government over-reaching, then this kind of law ought to be high on their list of things to oppose, for it is just as much a violation of privacy as an illegal wiretap. And in this case, there is no pretence that the citizen in question is doing something illegal,, for smoking, while unhealthy, is not illegal.

Thoughts On Fleet Week

I was in San Francisco over the past weekend for the annual festivities of Fleet Week. Every time I go, I am struck by how badly San Francisco treats the United States military for 360 days out of the year, and yet how much they love the money the Navy brings to the former home of so many military personnel. I watched the Blue Angels air show from a small park at the corner of Steiner and Clay streets, and I was surprised at how much oohing and ahhing took place from the spectators. Considering that most inhabitants of San Francisco would rather welcome Osama bin Laden than a member of the United States armed forces, the crowd was quite surprisingly respectful.

San Francisco's hatred of all things military is always surprising to me, considering how much the city owes the military. San Franscisco would not be a part of the United States were it not for Commodore Stockton's squadron during the Mexican-American War, and Treasure Island, Hunter's Point Naval Shipyard and the famed Presidio have all helped make San Fransciso into one of the nation's most famous cities. But you would never know that listening to current Mayor Gavin Newsom. The Mayor is more interested in philandering and drinking on the job than actually trying to support the brave men and women who allow him to pursue his hobbies in peace.

The latest example of San Francisco's hostility to the military came when san Francisco supervisors refused to allow the United States Marines to film a recruiting commercial in the city, citing 'traffic concerns'. It's Ok to shut down any number of city streets for the Folsom Street Fair, complete with nudity, public sex and bondage on view, but the Marines might cause 'traffic issues'??? Of course, reason should not be expected from the San Franscisco supervisors. These are the same people who refused to allow the USS Iowa, class ship of the last battleships, and sister to the USS Missouri, on whose decks World War II ended, to dock in their city. These are also the same people who feel that they have the right to flout United States immigration laws by refusing to cooperate with federal immigration officers. As a result of their lack of patriotism, the Iowa will probably end up in Stockton, a city that seems to appreciate the contributions of the United States military.

One sometimes wishes that San Franscisco and other far-left havens such as Berkeley could be excluded from the protection that the military provides to this country. However, I have many friends who work in the city, and I would hate for them to reap what the supervisors' stupidity has sowed. Otherwise, I heartily agree with Keith Laumer, who once had a character opine that San Fransciscans were remarkable only in their ease of replacement.

A Truly Smart Car

I posted last month about Newsweek magazine's shameless shilling for Daimler-Benz's 'Smart' car brand. However, an article in Yahoo today has brought my attention to a car that Newsweek perhaps should have shilled for instead.

Produced by Japanese carmaker Nissan, the Pivo 2 is a concept car that is scheduled to be introduced at the upcoming Tokyo otor Show later this year. The Pivo can carry three adults and features a cabin that can rotate to face forward or backwards. In addition, Yahoo says of the Pivo 2,

Its wheels also turn 90 degrees, making parking easier.

"With this easy-to-handle car, you can feel comfortable while driving," said Masahiko Tabe, senior manager of the advanced vehicle development group at Nissan Motors.

"You can go everywhere without worrying about your driving skills." The car is as yet not for commercial sale.

The futuristic, three-seat car also comes with a robotic device that Nissan said monitors the driver's expression using censors and tailors its conversation accordingly.

The device, able to converse in English and Japanese, can help an angry driver overcome road rage or wake you up if you're prone to dozing behind the wheel, the car makers said.

Now if they could only produce it in electric!

Birth of the Flying Boat

This is one in a series of posts on the hisstory of the United States Navy.

On October 5, 1913, the first amphibious flying boat was tested at Hammondsport, New York. The flying boat was designated as OWL, which stood for Over Water Land Type. This test led to a deeper program and eventually to the many amphibious flying boats that have served theis country ever since. One of the mopst famous that eventually resulted from this was the classic PBY (Catalina) flying boat used so successfully during the Seconed World War.

...And Justice For All

The other shoe has finally dropped in the Duke Rape Hoax. According to The Johnsville News, the three falsely accused Duke lacrosse players, Reasde Seligmann, Colin Finnerty and Dave Evans have filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong, several officers of the Durham Police Department and the City of Durham.

According to the Raleigh-Durham News & Observer newspaper, the suit wants,

i. appoints an independent monitor (the "Monitor"), to be determined by the Court, who shall oversee certain activities of the Durham Police Department for a period of ten (10) years, and who shall report to the Court on an annual basis regarding Defendants' compliance or non-compliance with the terms of the Permanent Injunction;

ii. authorizes the Monitor to establish, review, and enforce all policies applicable to the management of the Durham Police Department;

iii. provides the Monitor with the authority to hire, fire, and promote all Durham Police officials, including the Chief of Police;

iv. establishes an independent citizen Police Review Committee, composed of three members selected by the Court, which shall review and hear publicly complaints of misconduct by Durham residents against Durham Police personnel and make recommendations to the Monitor as to discipline or innocence;

v. orders that all eyewitness identification arrays, lineups, and similar procedures conducted by the Durham Police Department, whether formal or informal, and/or of suspects or "witnesses," conform to the provisions of General Order No. 4077 and be recorded by videotape;

vi. orders that any reports of DNA or other scientific testing requested by the Durham Police Department or District Attorney's Office include the results of all testing, and all notes, charts, or raw data generated during such testing, and that a copy of each such report be provided to the Monitor to ensure compliance;

vii. orders that the Durham Police Department provide proper training, based on materials and plans approved by the Monitor, to all current and new personnel (the "Remedial Training") on the following matters:

1. the appropriate chain of command in criminal investigations;

2. the issuance of public statements relating to an open investigation;

3. the conduct of eyewitness identification procedures;

4. the service of outstanding warrants on witnesses in a criminal investigation or proceeding;

5. prohibiting threats, inducements, or intimidation of witnesses;

6. the standards for police reports, investigator's notes, and other reports of investigations, including the timely and truthful preparation of such documents;

7. the supervision of private companies engaged to provide scientific testing or other services in connection with a police investigation; and

8. the standards for probable cause;

viii. enjoins the Durham Police Department from issuing any press releases, written statements, posters, flyers, or other materials intended for publication relating to a Durham Police investigation, whether directly or indirectly through an entity in which Durham Police personnel participate (such as Crimestoppers), without first obtaining the approval of the Monitor;

ix. enjoins the Durham Police Department from making any oral public statements relating to a Durham Police investigation, whether directly or indirectly through an entity in which Durham Police personnel participate (such as Crimestoppers), without first obtaining the approval of the Monitor as to the substance of the statement;


x. enjoins the Durham Police Department from serving any arrest warrants on a person known to be a witness in a criminal investigation or criminal proceeding without first obtaining the approval of the Monitor;

xi. enjoins the Durham Police Department from delegating any supervision over a Durham Police investigation to the District Attorney's Office;

xii. orders the Durham Police Department to implement a policy requiring Durham Police personnel to present exculpatory evidence when testifying before a grand jury.

xiii. enjoins the Durham Police Department from targeting students of Duke University for selective enforcement of the criminal laws, and from refusing to protect the legal and constitutional rights of students of Duke University;

xiv. requires the City of Durham to pay all costs relating to the Monitor, Police Review Committee, and Remedial Training for the duration of the Permanent Injunction; and

xv. enjoins DSI and Meehan from providing any reports of DNA or other scientific testing, or providing any expert testimony, in any court proceeding, whether civil or criminal, for a period of ten (10) years;

b. damages in an amount to be established at trial as compensation for constitutional deprivations; past and future economic loss, physical harm, emotional trauma, loss of privacy, and loss of reputation; loss of education; and expenses associated with defending against the criminal proceedings initiated and sustained by Defendants' unlawful conduct;

c. damages in an amount to be established at trial to punish Defendants for outrageous conduct pursued out of actual malice that recklessly and callously disregarded and was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiffs' constitutional rights, to discourage them from engaging in similar conduct in the future, and to deter others similarly situated from engaging in similar misconduct;

d. an award of attorneys' fees, including attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. S 1988(b);

e. an award for reasonable and customary costs, expenses, and interest incurred in pursuit of this action; and

f. whatever additional relief the Court may deem proper.

It is about time. Although Nifong himself has paid the price for his illegal actions, the equally illegal actions engagted in by a number of members of the Durham Police Department (Mark Gottfried, David Addison, Ben Himan) and the apparent lack of supervision provided by their superiors completely justifies this suit in my opinion. Although Himan appears to have done his best to act honorably and professionally since the case fell apart (he was the only member of the trio to rpovide honest testimony to the State Bar), it is my opionion that ogttlieb and Addison should see their careers come to the crashing halt with extreme prejudice. One simply does not knowlingly make dishonest statements as Addison did, or actively work to push forward a case that quite simply should never have been brought as Gottlieb did, without suffering the consequences. in addtion, in Gottleib's case we know that he has a prejudice againsty Duke students and has shown himself to be at best incompetent in the course of the case.

As for the City of Durham, at no point did any city official step forward to taek steps to ensure that the students;' rightw were being protected. And everyone, from the mayor on down, seems to have looked the other way while Nifong went ahead with his frame-up. Certainly Police Cheif Chalmers should answeer for his lack of leadership in the Police Department, and the City Manager, who helped produce the discredidted report on the case should also be terminated forthwith.

However, my main feeling is one of relief. These boys faced horrendous terrors virtually aloner for the better part of a year. Now it is time for real justice to be served. Durhan cou.d have avoided this by following its own processes. Since it failed so miserably, it is time for the City's spineless leadership to pay the penalty for their actions. Justice may be slow in coming, but I feel that at lazst justice will be served. Hat tip to John in Carolina.

On a different note, today marks Professor KC Johnson's last daily post at his superb Durham-in-Wonderland blog. Professor Johnson has been stalwart in his reporting throughout this case and bears much of the credit for the revealing of the nefarious antics of Nifong, Gottlieb, and others. A hearty thank you to Professor Johnson. His reporting and his insights will be sorely missed as the civil rights case proceeds.

Creeping Sharia In Chicago

Sharia claims yet another victim- a Muslim mother has managed to get Ramadan added to the calendar of holidays at the Oak Lawn school disctrict in Chicago.

However, the local media outlet, CBS Channel 2, downplayed the significance, by claiming that not much has changed- "School Keeps Christmas, Hallowe'en; Adds Ramadan". Since when do American schools celebrate non-Christian holidays? I had many Jewish friends, who never celebrated Hanukkah or Passover at school. We did not get holidays for their religious holidays, though some school disctircts did give the Jewish children days off during their most holy celebrations. Why are we allowing Muslims to suddenly add Ramadan to the school calendar?

It seems that most of the school district's residents took a common-sense approach. As CBS 2 reported,

Elizabeth Zahdan was at the center of the storm, a Muslim mother of three who requested that her children be separated from others at lunch during the Ramadan fast.

The schools agreed, but at the Tuesday board meeting, many parents didn't.

"I don’t ever remember one of us asking for our child to be separated from classmates during Ash Wednesday when they were fasting, or on every Friday of Lent when our children are not allowed to eat meat," said parent Cathy Hughes.

"If Muslims want the school holidays, menus and school traditions to become tailored to their needs or beliefs, then they should go to private school next to their mosque," said resident Brian Shapiro.

"That does not represent all the Muslims, all of the Arabs at that school," said Qais Nofel, the father of a student in Ridgeland School District 122.

There may be hope for America if residents are willing to stand up to the spineless bureaucrats who want so badly to be politically correct. (For a discussion of the pernicious nature of political correctness, please see Professor William Anderson's remarks on the subject). However, the deeper concern is when Americans will recognize that Muslims are not by nature satisfied with being equal- they want to be dominant and everyone else to be in a subordinate position. Their religion demands it, and many Muslims, especially Black Muslims, see an opportunity to use the new accepted 'victimhood' of Islam to gain a position of even more entitlement.

The United States by definition is designed to downplay religious conflict, as the State cannot advance one religion over another, according ot the Constitution. But although the ACLU will never recognize it, their efforts to advance Islam (publis-financing of foot-baths at public colleges, publicly-financed mosques, etc) and the constant attacks on Christianity are doing precisely that. The United States, like it or not, is built on Christian foundations, not Muslim, not Jewish, not Buddhist. We are remarkably tolerant, as most other religions who live here among us can testify. But Islam is not like other religions. And unfortunately, many Muslims are determined to use our insititutions against us to institute creeping sharia of the type that this Elizabeth Zahdan is attempting. It may be adding Ramadan to a school holiday calendar today. But what comes tomorrow? The only thing we can be sure of is that there will be other demands, until we find ourselves living under Islamic shaira. For that is many Muslims' ultimate goal. And only constant vigilance will prevent them from succeeding- our elected leaders certainly have not the courage to stand up for our culture and our civilization.

CNN: OK To Fly Mexican Flag Over US Flag

A Mexican bar owner in Reno Nevada flew the Mexican flag above that of the United States. Only problem is that this is specifically illegal under United States Code Section 7, Title Four, which states,

(c) No other flag or pennant should be placed above or, if on the
same level, to the right of the flag of the United States of
America, except during church services conducted by naval chaplains
at sea, when the church pennant may be flown above the flag during
church services for the personnel of the Navy. No person shall
display the flag of the United Nations or any other national or
international flag equal, above, or in a position of superior
prominence or honor to, or in place of, the flag of the United
States at any place within the United States or any Territory or
possession thereof: Provided, That nothing in this section shall
make unlawful the continuance of the practice heretofore followed
of displaying the flag of the United Nations in a position of
superior prominence or honor, and other national flags in positions
of equal prominence or honor, with that of the flag of the United
States at the headquarters of the United Nations.

The brazen effrontery of the bar prompted an American veteran to cut down both flags. But when CNN reported on the event, they managed to significantly skew the perception. The CNN report simply states that the veteran was angry that the Mexican flag was placed above that of the US- no mention was made that it was in fact illegal under US law. CNN compounded their offense by showing in their video clip, not the actual words of the relevant US code that outlaws this action, but instead 'flag rules' taken from USHistory.org, thus downplaying the actual offense, by suggesting that athe law is in fact merely recommended behavior.

As in so much relating to the illegal alien lobby, apprently it is OK with CNN for immigrants to disrespect and/or disobey the laws of our country, but let one American try to react, and they scream bloody murder. Balance? What balance? Cross-posted on NewsBusters.

On Political Correctness

Political Correctness has become the major problem facing free speech. PC requires that we respect all listeners' opinions, so that we do not offend anyone. Of course, the effect that this dictat has on free speech is truly chilling, as speech that offends, especially speech that offends the privileged victim groups is stifled.

Economics Professor William Anderson of Frostburg State University in Maryland has written a powerful condemnation of the forces of political correctness in the context of his review of Professor KC Johnson and Stuart Taylor's book 'Until Proven Innocent', the damning tale of the Duke Lacrosse Hoax, wherein a rogue prosecutor, a lying accuser, several Durham Police Department officers, 88 Duke professors, most of the Duke University Administration and the majority of the local and national media attempted to frame three innocent students for a crime that never occurred.

Professor Anderson believes that for many of the people who worked so hard to convict the three innocent students were motivated by political correctness, which emphasizes a True Path, whether or not the facts fit. As he writes,

Face it, those who did the most to spread the lies really did not care whether or not three Duke lacrosse players raped Crystal Gail Mangum in the bathroom of the house at 610 Buchanan Boulevard. As Newsweek’s Evan Thomas put it, "The narrative was correct, but the facts were wrong."

Professor Anderson has been kind enough to allow me to quote his remarks in full on political correctness and how it influenced the Duke Case. His comments are as follows:

Johnson and Taylor are political liberals, and people who tend to believe in reform. They are rightly shocked by the lies of the police and prosecutors, the dishonesty of Duke’s administration, the rush-to-judgment coverage of the mainstream media, and the indecent and pathetic performance of a large portion of Duke’s radical faculty. However, as liberals, they tend to believe that such actions can be corrected or at least diverted through political and legal reform. In other words, while they observed at ground level an incredible amount of cynicism, they themselves still tend to keep their reformist nature.

However, I see what happened as something fundamental in modern higher education and the law. Political Correctness is not simply something dreamed up by "liberal wackos" (as Taylor likes to call them), but rather is something that has permeated all of higher education, law, and politics. The modern PC regime is fundamentally opposed to a classical liberal way of life. It is hostile to free exchange in a marketplace, free speech and free exchange of ideas, and everything in Western law that has developed since the Middle Ages.

Indeed, it is totalitarian in nature, and it cannot co-exist with a legal and social order that is Liberal in nature. It makes all of life subject to political thinking, and political thinking based upon raw power. We saw all of that on tap in this prosecution. There was no evidence, only accusations that came from a drug-addicted, mentally-ill prostitute who constantly changed the fundamental nature of her stories, and who could offer nothing in evidence except her ever-changing words. There was nothing believable about what Crystal Gail Mangum told the police, yet the original lies ultimately metastasized into what was known as the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case.

That did not happen simply because police and prosecutors chose to lie. It happened because Political Correctness does not demand truth. Indeed, PC thought is the antithesis of truth, and the PC True Believer will tell anyone who will listen that truth is what one creates in order to achieve political outcomes. Face it, those who did the most to spread the lies really did not care whether or not three Duke lacrosse players raped Crystal Gail Mangum in the bathroom of the house at 610 Buchanan Boulevard. As Newsweek’s Evan Thomas put it, "The narrative was correct, but the facts were wrong." Indeed, that is a most cynical statement, and since Thomas was one of those journalists who worked overtime to tell the world that Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and David Evans were three vicious rapists, his words tell more than even he would understand.

The Duke Lacrosse Case was a front on yet another battlefield in a war between a liberal order that emphasizes the rights and responsibilities of the individual and recognizes that the state is an entity that must be both feared and controlled and an order in which the overpowering state is everything, and that political power is something to be worshipped and sought after. In this battle, the "good guys" won, but only because some well-placed and influential people recognized that the thing called "truth" really does matter. It was and is a satisfying victory, but it is only one small victory against some very, very dark forces.

And this is unfortunately too true. P.C. is a pernicious system, one that muzzles the light of honest debate by pretending that feelings (especially those of certain designated victim groups) are more important than reaching truth. Truth can indeed hurt, but only free debate and the acknowledgment of truth can ultimates free us from the effects of political correctness.

Hat tip to John in Carolina and my gratitude to Professor Anderson for allowing me to re-post his remarks in their entirety.

Light Posting This Week

I am under the weather this week, so posting will be fairly light.

Politico Thinks Defamation OK For Congresspeople

The Politico apparently thinks that Congresspeople should be allowed to defame members of the US military. After Representative Jack Murtha (D-Pa.) was ordered to testify in Marine Sergeant Frank Wuterich's defamation case against him, The Politico opined that,

Frankly, I don't understand this ruling at all, and I wouldn't be surprised if it is appealed by the Justice Dept. and/or House general counsel's office on behalf of Murtha. Murtha, who can say some inappropriate things once in a while, was clearly acting in his capacity as a lawmaker when he made the comments and is thus protected by the Speech or Debate Clause from any type of prosecution for official acts.

I think the Politico understands, they simply do not wish to allow any limits on the garbage that Congresspeople can spew. Murtha's comments were, so far as I am aware, based on no documents whatsoever, and no matter whether he was speaking as a public or as a private person were despicable and should be punishable. I think the judge was absolutely correct in this case, especially since the investigating officer in the case has recommended the dismissal of charges against Wuterich and most of the other Marines involved in the case. If Murtha did indeed possess infomration that led him to make thsoe charges, then that is a different story. However, this country still believes in innocent until proven guilty. Wuterich and the other Haditha Marines have not been found guilty, and indeed, most of them have already been either cleared or charges have been recomended to be dropped. It is time for Murtha to answer for his defamatory attacks on these men who are far better men than Congressman Murtha.

Baby Left Bound While Parent Party

People like Mitch Laputka and Rachel Anderson are the reason why social services exist in America. Anyone would be horrified and appalled after reading the story of what they did to their baby out of pure selfishness. What did they do? According to Wisconsin's WISN 12 News,

A Glendale couple said they couldn't afford a baby sitter, so they strapped their 14-month-old son in his stroller at home while the couple went out, police alleged.

Rachel Anderson and her live-in boyfriend, Mitch Laputka, were ordered to stand trial Thursday on charges they neglected baby Gabriel so badly that his body was covered with diaper rash, his body temperature was 12 degrees below normal and he stopped breathing, requiring 21 minutes of CPR to revive him. Police said the couple admitted to leaving the boy home alone because they wanted to party.

These people should be sterilized, in my opinion. They have proven that they are not worthy of the responsibility that parenthood brings. I have a just-barely-two year old son. While his presence brings with it a definite curtailment in my social life, he is worth ever second I spend with him. I cannot understand how someone would willingly treat a human being this way for simple selfish pleasure, yet that is precisely what baby Gabriel's parents did.

Fortunately, these idiots were caught and will stand trial for their criminal mistreatment of their helpless baby. I hope and trust that little Gabriel find a loving foster or adoptive family who will cure his injuries and give him a loving atmosphere. But remember- this is government. The odds are that Gabriel will be returned to his birth parents, no matter how badly they have already injured this poor little boy.

Edwards Bloviates- Media Silent

On the MTV/MySpace Forum yesterday, Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards stated that ,

“Pretty soon we’re not going to have a young African-American male population in America. They’re all going to be in prison or dead. One of the two.”

Edwards also said, according to the MTV/MySpace site that building prison won't deter crime.

This proves two things- one that we have sunk low indeed if a serious Presidential candidate can utter fallacies like this and two, that our media have completely abrogated any claim to both objectivity and professionalism if they are willing to let him get away with such comments.

There is much wrong with both of these statements. Firstly, building prisons does indeed deter at least some folks from committing cirmes- especially if we as a society were more willing to hold these folks up to the ridicule they richly deserve. Sheriff Joe Arpaiao has the right idea in making his inmates wear pink.

Secondly, and more importantly, Edwards' comments show both a complete lack of respect for young black Americans and a willingness to engage in racial hyperbole without any real knowledge of the facts. Much like his 'Two Americas' rhetoric, this simply exposes Edwards as the limousine liberal he is- an empty suit that has made his money on the back of ordinary Americans.

However, the deeper question is why the media is so willing to let people like Edwards get away with this kind of dissgusting garbage. If a Republican opened his or her mouth to utter this kind of derogatory speech, the media would hbe all over him or her, and deservedly so. This statement shows a startling lack of respect for blacks, both as inidividuals and aas a group. yet not a single media source has ciriticized Edwards thus far that I can see. Hat tip to NRO Online

Media Silent on Military Good Samaritanship

Reuters is busy smearing the troops by claiming they opened fire on civilians. But while accusations of misconduct are always good for several months worth of front-page stories, somehow the media never has time to comment on the many good deeds that the United States Armed Forces perform all over the world. And unfortunately, the US military does not do as well as we would wish at getting the word out. A case in point is the story posted on the United States Navy's site today, as USS Stout (DDG 55), came to the assistance of a Tanzanian passenger ferry off the coast of Somalia. As the Navy reported,

Spice Island, which was carrying no passengers, hailed for engineering assistance when it ran out of fuel while transiting to Tanzania. Stout provided the crew with food, water and fuel and helped to get the vessel operational under its own power. Coalition forces have a long-standing tradition of helping mariners in distress by providing medical assistance, engineering assistance and search and rescue efforts.

This is worthy of being reported, and once upon a time, maybe the media might have done so, instead of spending their time bashing the forces that allow them to propagate their poisonous penmanship. But at the present time, the media is too busy tearing down to think of actually reporting something that would reflect some credit on the many men and women who take seriously the idea of actually doing something to help their fellow Americans. Most journalists, unfortunately, do not qualify for that role.

Reuters Reporter Quotes Himself

Did Reuters reporter Noor Mohammed Sherzai ever take a class in journalistic ethics? If so, perhaps he slept through it, as his article today uses himself as a quote.

Sherzai writes today that US troops fired towards a crowd in Afghanistan. However, the only quote that he is able to produce to substantiate his accusations is from himself. He writes,

"I saw the fire brigade vehicle rushing to the area at top speed. Somehow its brakes failed and hit one police vehicle and coalition vehicles, then the Americans started firing," said Reuters correspondent Noor Mohammad Sherzai.

Sherzai does allow an American officer, Major Joe Klopple to state that the shots were fired in the air as warnings to disperse the crowd and avoid injury to anyone present, but he then goes right back to his meme that U.S. troops were attempting to injure these innocent civilians. And to support his argument, he uses his favorite source- himself! He writes,

Sherzai and other reporters at the scene said many shots were fired and Afghan police were among those fleeing the scene.

"I was running away as fast as I could, but some of the police overtook me," Sherzai said. The police, he said, "were very angry because the Americans were shooting and wanted to shoot back but others stopped them".

Only after extensively quoting himself does Sherzai allow another witness to interject his own recollections.

Somehow I cannot think that this is acceptable behavior in professional journalism. However, since Reuters has loing since thrown any pretensions of objectivity or professionalism out the window when it comes to covering American troops, I am sadly unsurprised by this latest manifestation of same. Hat tip to NewsBusters reader Jammie Wearing Fool. Cross-posted on NewsBusters.

Victimology 101

Lawyers have done much to ruin our society, from driving doctors out of business to forcing ridiculous warning signs. However, their most pernicious contribution might be in promoting the vicitm society- the idea that anyone can become a victom. The laste manifestation of this can be seen in former National Basketball Asoociation (NBA) player Roy Tarpley, who is suing the NBA under the Americans with Disabilities Act, claiming that his cocaine and alcohol habit constitutes a disability.

First, a little background. Tarpley was a multi-talented 7-foot forward, who came into the NBA in 1986. He played five years with the Dallas Mavericks franchise, and was instrumental in the Mavericks' run to the 1988 Western Conference Finals, where they fell to the Los Angeles Lakers in seven games. Hwoiever, he was thrown out of the league in 1991 for using cocaine, which violated the laegues drug policy. Tarpley was reinstated in 1994, but was banned for life in 1995 for drinking alcohol and also for violating the terms of a court-ordered aftgercare program. The events would seem fairly straightforward- a player violates league policy, league eventually pernmanently bans player for multiple violations. Tarpley, however, seems to think that he is a victim here. His suit claims,

Tarpley, who was permanently banned from the NBA in 1995, claimed in his lawsuit that the league and the Mavericks discriminated against him on the basis of his disability as a recovering drug and alcohol abuser.
"Tarpley is a qualified individual with a disability within the meaning of the ADA, in that he has a disability in the form of past drug and alcohol abuse, which substantially limits at least one of his major life activities," as documented in the the 46-page lawsuit, which was filed in Houston federal court.

Since when is coacine and alcohol use a disability? using these products is a choice that Tarpley made, and thus he ought to be willing to bear the consequences as well. No one forced him to partake of alcohol or cocaine, and his initial suspension ought to have warned him that a second violation would bring harsher discipline. Unfortunately, the victim soceity that the trial lawyers are pushing seems to agree with Tarpley. According to the story on Fox Sports, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has agreed with Tarpley that using alcohol and cocaine is a disability.

To me this is a disgrace. Tarpley made his own choices and now does not have the moral strength to accept that his banning from the league was directly due to his own actions. And the EEOC has encouraged this nonsense. Physical limitations should be covered, but choosing to indulge in alcohol or drugs is not a disability in my estimation and I am appalled that the legal profession seems determined to make it so. This is merely one more reason why we need to rein in the lawyers and their enablers in the judiciary. Would that our elected representative had the intestinal fortitude to do that, instead of wasting their time in attempts to curry favor with the green lobby and empty-headed Hollywood celebrities.

Time Gushes Over Ahmadinejad

Does the media have any understanding at all of how important they are to terrorists and other enemies of the United States with their determined moral equivalency? When it comes to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the answer appears to be a resounding no. Time Magazine's Richard Stengel provides a glowing puff piece on the Iranian leader, entirely abrogating his responsibility as a reporter to provide any context whatsoever.

Stengel writes of Ahmadinejad,

The invitation was on creamy stationery with fancy calligraphy: The Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran "requests the pleasure" of my company to dine with H.E. Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The dinner is at the Intercontinental Hotel — with names carefully written out at all the place settings around a rectangular table. There are about 50 of us, academics and journalists mostly. There's Brian Williams across the room, and Christiane Amanpour a few seats down. And at a little after 8pm, on a day when he has already addressed the U.N., the evening after his confrontation at Columbia, a bowing and smiling Mahmoud Admadinejad glides into the room.

This is now an annual ritual for the President of Iran. Every year, during the U.N. General Assembly in New York, he plots out a media campaign that — in its shrewdness, relentlessness, and quest for attention — would rival Angelina Jolie on a movie junket. And like any international figure, Mr. Ahmadinejad hones his performance for multiple audiences: in this case, the journalists and academics who can filter his speech and ideas for a wider American audience.

This is appalling on a number of fronts. Stengel admits right at the beginning of his puff piece that this entire event is a media opportunity for one of America's greatest enemies to use the American press to get his message out to the American public. He understands exactly what Ahmadinejad is trying to do and enables it anyway! This is the same press that continues to preface United States military announcements of progress with the word 'claim', yet they have no compunctions whatsoever about swallowing Ahmadinejad's propaganda whole. During the event, Stengel writes of Ahmadinejad,

When it comes time for him to address the comments, he does so by citing each speaker by name — 23 in all, he notes. In contrast with what he calls the lack of respect and dignity accorded to him at Columbia — where, he says, he found it odd that an academic institution which prizes tolerance would treat him without any — he addresses each person carefully and patiently. Some highlights
- The US and Iran can play a positive role together in Iraq. "If the US withdraws from Iraq, good things will happen," he says. "I believe that the Iraqi people can rule themselves."
- In the Middle East, Ahmadinejad says the world must allow the Palestinians to decide their future for themselves: "That is the human solution to sixty years of instability." He refers to Israel only as "the Zionist regime" and does not mention the Holocaust.
- Ahmadinejad claims there are thirty newspapers published in Iran that are opposed to his government, citing that as evidence of press freedom in Iran.
- In answer to a question about how he viewed Hitler's legacy, he says, "I view Hitler's role as extremely negative, a despicably dark face."
- He notes that Americans don't understand Iranian history, saying that the movie 300 — with which he seems intimately familiar — was a "complete distortion of Iranian history." Iran, he says, has never invaded anyone in its history.

Stengel allows Ahmadinejad to state each of these ridiculous propositions, and does not question a single one, though his profession is one that seems to demand confrontation, especially in the case of U.S. Republican office-holders. Can anyone imagine an allied foreign leader receiving a similarly approving reaction from the press? Of course not. In fact, as reported by NewsBuster Geoffrey Dickens, Afghani President Hamid Karzai certainly did not receive a friendly welcome from the U.S. press corps, as Meredith Veiera asked repeatedly what was won in Afghanstan. Yet many of the press' major figures allowed Ahmadinejad to make his statements with not so much as a single challenge.

For example, if Stengel and his colleagues were honest reporters, they could have challenged Ahmadinejad on his statement that Iran has never invaded anyone by asking about the ten-year war with Iraq, when both nations did indeed invade the other at times. And the fact that Persia (the ancient name for Iran) did indeed invade a number of other countries (including Greece) is a matter of historical fact. In addition, since Islam's conquering of Persia, Iran has been involved in a number of Islamic invasions of the West, including 1683 at Vienna. And Islam has the most comprehensive record of invasion and destruction of other cultures in history. Yet no reporter asked Ahmadinejad about that.

In addition, Stengel or one of his counterparts (perhaps Christiane Amanpour of CNN, who is so concerned about God's Warriors) could have asked for clarification on Ahmadinejad's comments about allowing Palestinians to decide their future for themselves. Isn't that precisely what Israel is doing? And allowing the Palestinians to decide their own future does not allow them to decide Israel's as well, which has been the sticking point- both Hamas and Fatah call for Israel's destruction as a prerequisite for a Palestinian state. Yet not a single reporter asked Ahmadinejad about that small problem- which the Iranian did not address.

Finally, why did not a single media member at the event ask Ahmadinejad about his comment that if the U.S withdraws from Iraq "good things can happen". What good things, Mr. Ahmadinehad? Good things for whom? Why did not a single reporter try to get clarification?

Stengel ended his piece by writing of Ahmadinejad,

Finally, in response to a question about whether war with Iran was growing more likely, he says, "Mr. Bush is interested in harming Iran. But I believe there are wise politicians in America who will prevent such a war. We hate war. We would not welcome it. But we are prepared for every scenario. Yet I don't think war will happen."
With that, Ahmadinejad says he has an early morning appointment the next day, and that he welcomes greater dialogue like this evening. And then, still composed, and with the same slightly mysterious smile that never leaves his face all evening, he bows deeply and heads upstairs.

I can well imagine he smiled. He had just succeeded in presenting his version of events to a group of American media sheep, and knew that he would receive valuable media time for his propaganda. The American media should be ashamed of themselves. Once, this kind of thing would have been unthinkable. Would the U.S. press have interviewed Adolf Hitler in 1943? Or Tojo Hideki in 1942? Of course not. Why then are the U.S. media so willingly compliant in allowing a man who espouses the destruction of a free Jewish State, whose government is actively engaged in killing American soldiers in Iraq and whose government is attempting to gain nuclear weapons to use them to advance his horrific goals? The only answers I can think of are either political partisanship or simple naivete. Neither bodes well for the future of American journalism. Cross-posted on NewsBusters.

Propaganda Then & Now

The following is a classic World War II Disney short entitled 'Reason & Emotion'. It represents a time when the United States knew how to produce effective (and largely accurate) propaganda to counter that of our enemies. And it does a much better job of explaining how dictators such as Hitler and would-be dictators like bin Laden gain influence than our so-called intelligentsia today ever could. Pity that our entertainment industry is more concerned about global warming than actually helping the United States win this war against Islamic imperialism.



Hat tip to little green footballs.

Publicist: I Want Osama bin Laden As a Client

Publicists exist to help their clients get their message out to the larger public. As I understand their role, they shape, spin and aotherwise massage their client's actions and words to create a most positive public presence. However, one would expect publicists to be able to differentiate between spoiled actors and other 'celebrities' and murderous terrorists who espouse a global empire based on a particularly barbaric code. In the case of publicist Prada Jones, one would be severely mistaken. Jones' wrote an article at Ezinearticles.com on why she wants to be Osama bin Laden's publicist, and based on her comments, seems to lack both common sense and moral clarity.

Jones fatuously wrote,

He seems like he would be a typical client... always wanting the world to hear what he's got to say. And, he would always be coming up with some new idea or theory for me to publicize. Just like most celebrity clients, he would be somewhat hard to get on the phone.

A typical client? Jones apparently doesn't understand the difference between an actor or fake celebrity such as Paris Hilton, and a man who has masterminded attacks against the United States and Western Europe that have killed thousands of people and injured many more. In addition,why she is so gushing over a mass murderer who doesd not respect women as individuals and who if successful would launch a global empire in which non-Muslims, including women, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and certainly Christians would be relegated to second-class citizenship at best. bin Laden promotes and fights for a State in which all decision would be made by an unelected council of self-appointed imams, just as is the case in Iran and in most other Islamic states.

The amount of ignorance coupled with naivete in Jones gushing nonsense is shocking. One would expect a graduate of high school to have some understanding of the difference between an Islamic terrorist and a narcissistic celebrity such as Hilton or most other Hollywood celebrites. But in this day and age, where moral equivalency is taught as a matter of course, one would be sadly mistaken. This kind of nonsense is hailed as the new tolerance, as its adherents never realize that they are enabling a form of tyranny that compares to that perpetrated by Hitler's Germany. We can only hope they awake before they find themsleves trapped within its grasp. Hat tip to NewsBusters reader GoldenEagle.

Would-be Dhimmis Beware

Many of the liberal left and their media enablers seem to be in a sort of unholy alliance with the Muslim fundamentalists who are actively trying to destroy our culture and make us into dhimmis under a worldwide Islamic caliphate. A word of warning to these useful idiots and sufferers of Bush Derangement Syndrome: be careful what you wish for.

An article from 2002 in the BBC displays what sort of regime would be our lot if the Islamists should happen to win this war in which we are engaged. According to the BBC, the Saudi religious police allowed fifteen schoolsgirls to die in a fire simply because they were not wearing the headscarves and black robes required for Saudi Arabia's second-class women citizens. As the BBC reported at the time,

Saudi Arabia's religious police stopped schoolgirls from leaving a blazing building because they were not wearing correct Islamic dress, according to Saudi newspapers.

...

One witness said he saw three policemen "beating young girls to prevent them from leaving the school because they were not wearing the abaya".

The Saudi Gazette quoted witnesses as saying that the police - known as the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice - had stopped men who tried to help the girls and warned "it is a sinful to approach them".

But the story gets worse, as it opens a window on the practices of the Muslim police, whose role would be even more invasive in a majority Christian country such as ours if their barbaric and bloody religion shouild happen to win this war of cultures we are waging. The BBC writes,

The religious police are widely feared in Saudi Arabia. They roam the streets enforcing dress codes and sex segregation, and ensuring prayers are performed on time.

Those who refuse to obey their orders are often beaten and sometimes put in jail.

is this what the Democrats are working with to defeat American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan? Is this the ally that the Left is so pleased to welcome to Columbia Uiversity and other once-prestigious unviersities? Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was only too happy to wear a submissive headscarf in Syria, though she is outspoken here about allowing Muslims to do as they wish in our country. Does she not see the contrast in how Muslims expect her to bend to their wishes, though they are actively trying to impose their vision of society on us? If Islam will not compromise, why should we be expected to bend over backward to Islamic dreams of empire?

This idiocy must end. We have our own culture, and our own laws. We can boast of a proud tradition of espiousing hhuman rights and we can point to many acheivements both techniocal and philosophical. Islam had a brief time in the sun, but it is by far more renowned for its inhumaity, its misogyny, its bloodthirsty imperialism than for its arts and science. We on the other hand have soared since our small beginnings from a global backwater in Europe. We can point to many achievements in Western Civilization, from the Magna Carta to the abolition of slavery (Saudi Arabia officially abolished slavery in 1956 and Arabs have beeen for centuries the primary slaver societies- remember why we fought the Barbary Wars against Muslim pirate states in the early nineteenth century). We have pioneered the ideals of freedom- something Islam cannot boast of. And no Muslim society has ever come up with anything analogous to our Constitution, with its insistence on rights granted by God, and guranateed by wise governance.

If we would continue to live by those laws, we must be prepared to defend them. Byzantium fell in large part becasue the people as a whole no longer were able to defend themselves. They were more concerned with arguing over the nature of the Trinity than working with other Chrisitans to defend their city from the rapcious hordes of Ottoman emperor Mehmet II. And we ourselves are in danger. We have terrorst-enablers such as the Council on Muslim American Relations working hand-in-hand with anti-American groups like MoveOn.org and George Soros' anti-capitalist Open Society. But I remind these useful idiots that should their friends win, they will find them selves at the forefront of the execution queue, for their ideas are complete anathema to the Muslims who are so happy to receive their support now. beware of what you wishe for- especially if you continue to work so hard to make sure it happens.

Flat Tax Succeeds, Media Silent

In the United States, the flat tax has long been an object of complete derision by the media and the Democratic Party. However, as the Investors' Business Daily (IBD) reported in an editorial on Spetember 24, Eastern Europe is rushing to embrace flat taxes and it has already caused massive improvements. Yet the American press has been completely silent. Accident or deisgn? I fear the latter, as it does not fit the media's preferred mold.

However, their silence is becoming increasingly unsustainable. According to the IBD,

In America, cutting tax rates is an ideological issue. In the former Soviet satellites of Europe, it is increasingly not an issue at all — so obvious is it that it gives people better lives.

It began with Estonia in 1994, when Mart Laar as prime minister, thinking he was just emulating the capitalist West, made it the world's first nation in modern times to enact a flat tax. A major fiscal crisis resulting from the collapse of the Soviet Union was soon fixed, Estonia was growing at 7% a year and the "Baltic Tiger" was born.

...

Nearby nations soon began getting their feet wet. First, Latvia and Lithuania, both at rates of about 25%. Then Russia in 2001 enacted a flat tax on personal income at 13%; revenues doubled there in less than three years.

Serbia followed in 2003 with a 14% flat rate. Ukraine set its flat tax at 13% in 2004.

Slovakia activated its 19% flat rate the same year. Romania's flat tax was pegged at 16% in 2005.

Georgia outdid them all, passing a 12% flat tax into law on an overwhelming parliamentary vote just before Christmas 2004. Macedonia's flat tax rate, inaugurated this year, is also 12%.

And the flat tax has improved conditions in every single state that has adopted it. Yet the media and the Democrats continue to claim that our progressive tax code is necessary. Maybe necessary to the reams of tax lawyers, IRS flunkies and people like most Congressmen who can afford to pay others to find the loopholes, but certainly not necessary to ordinary people like me. The flat tax has been proven in Eastern Europe. How much could we increase our economy if only the cowardly politicians in Washington and their socialistic flunkies in the media would actually report honestly on the European experience with the flat tax. They would prefer to sugarcoat the ravages of socialism than tell the truth about a capitalist success, it would seem.

Columbia's Silent Shame

Yesterday, Columbia University invited Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak as part of their Heads of State series. Leaving aside the impropriety of Ahmadinejad- a Holocaust-denier, supporter of Adolf Hitler's 'final solution' and a member of the force that kidnapped and held American diplomats hostage in 1979- speaking at an American university, the larger shame belongs to the students and faculty of Columbia University.

After Ahmadinejad entered, Columbia President Lee Bollinger addressed the Iranian theocrat in no uncertain terms. During a ten-minute address, Bollinger said,

Mr President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator," Bollinger told Ahmadinejad, accusing him of brutal crackdowns on the country's academics and homosexuals.

"Why are you so afraid of Iranian citizens expressing their opinions for change?" he asked, challenging the leader of the Islamic republic to explain his comments downplaying the Holocaust.

"Frankly, in all candor Mr President, I doubt you will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions," he added.

"When you come to a place like this, this makes you quite simply ridiculous. You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated," he said.

I happened to hear this address on radio while on my way home and I was struck by the fact that while Bollinger spoke these truths to Ahmadinejad, there was absolute silence in the auditorium. Not one person expressed support for Bollinger's strong statements. Not a single voice was raised in support, though according to some news reports, Ahmadinejad received applause during his address, despite neglecting to answer Bollinger's questions.

So Ahmadinejad received support from the audience. Yet not one member of the audience could show support for Bollinger's strong questioning of the Iranian theocrat, who holds his position only through the threat of force- he has never been honestly elected. Columbia should be ashamed of itself for its poor showing, if there is any shame left in the hearts and minds of these useful idiots of the academy.

Media: Clinton Censorship OK

Is the media hypocritical on censorship when conducted by Democrats versus Republicans? It would seem that this may indeed be the case. The media likes to claim that President George Bush's Administration is clamping down on civil rights, although they have a difficult time citing any actual examples of such. However, when the Clinton campaign really does exercise press censorship, the media is largely silent.

According to the Politico online magazine, GQ magazine was poised to run a story that would have been critical of the Hillary Clinton campaign. This in itself is a relative rarity in the current media. However, by threatening to withold access to former President Bill Clinton, the campaign managed to force GQ to pull the planned story. Editor Jim Nelson then tried to claim that this was normal procedure,

“I don’t really get into the inner workings of the magazine, but I can tell you that yes, we did kill a Hillary piece. We kill pieces all the time for a variety of reasons,” Nelson said in an e-mail to Politico.

He did not respond to follow-up questions. A Clinton campaign spokesman declined to comment.

This is normal procedure? I can believe that magazines kill stories all the time, but the fact is that no media source would have been willing to kill a story critical of a Republican in return for access to a former president. The Politico claims that Bill Clinton's star status gives his wife's campaign unprecedented power over the press, but I find this rationnale suspicious. The Poliltico also tries to make equivalency by writing,

The 2004 Bush campaign banned a New York Times reporter from Vice President Dick Cheney’s jet, and Sen. Barack Obama threatened to bar Fox News reporters from campaign travel.

Somehow, I cannnot see the equivalence between the 2004 Bush campaign banning a writer who was known to be hostile to the campaign and forcing a media organ to print what a campaign wants to be printed. The one simply denies personal access to the candidate but does not try to influence what is written, whilst the other is actually practicing censorship- something the press claims to be very much opposed to. Even the Politico admits that "But a retreat of the sort GQ is alleged to have made is unusual, particularly as part of what sources described as a barely veiled transaction of editorial leverage for access."

One would think that a press which genuinely wants to defend their editorial freedom would be up in arms over this blatant attempt to shape how events are reported, especially since the spiked story was apparently news, not opinion. However, the majorioty of the media have beeen completely silent on the affair. And unfortunately this is entirely unsurprising.

Let President Bush try to listen to foreign communications and the press screams about First Amendment rights. Let there be discussion of prosecution for publishing illegally leaked national security secrets in the New York Times and the press screams about their freedom to report whatever they see fit. But if Hillary really does exercise censorship, the press emits a collective yawn. Apparenlty Democratic censorship is OK to the Press. Cross-posted on NewsBusters.

Tokugawas Still Xenophobic

Japan's Tokugawa (徳川) family is descended from Tokugawa Ieyasu (徳川家康), the victor of the Battle of Sekigahara (関ヶ原の戦い) in the year 1600 that finally unified Japan. As such they are one of Japan's most noble families. Aside from Ieyasu's success in finally unifying the country afterthe previous efforts of Oda Nobunaga (織田 信長) and Toyotomi Hideyoshi (豊臣 秀吉), the Tokugawa family is most famous for closing Japan to outside elements for almost three hundred years, until the appearance of Comodore Matthew Perry's 'Black Fleet' in Tokyo Bay in 1852. It appears that almost 150 years of foreign relations has not beeen able to enlighten the family as to the value of others' cultures, as they are opposing their oldest son's marriage to a Vietnamese woman.

According to the Shukan Shincho (週刊新潮),

"He met the Vietnamese woman about 10 years ago," a close pal of Tokugawa's tells Shukan Shincho. "He was working at the FAO's Vietnam office at the time and met her through his work. She comes from a good family. She's petite and pretty. She's a complete contrast to Iehiro, who is only 174 centimeters tall but weighs 105 kilograms. She's 11 years younger than him, too. And she looks even younger still. Iehiro said he fell in love with her charms." Iehiro apparently set his mind on marriage not long after he started dating, and he soon let his parents know of his intentions.
"Iehiro knows that he is a member of the Tokugawa clan and fully realizes exactly what that status entails. He told his parents he spent three years in elementary school in the United States and that he has very liberal ideas about marriage. On top of that, she is the woman he chose," the buddy says. "But Tsunenari, important as head of the clan, and his mother were bitterly opposed. They said they didn't mind if their son dated a foreigner, but there was no way they were going to let him marry one."

So I gather it is OK to toy with foreigners' affections, but never ever think of making a permanent relationship, as they simply aren't good enough for a Japanese family? This is so ridiculous, I hardly know where to begin. Firstly, it is amazing that any family should be so arrogant as to discount the feelings of the objects of their scions affections. And I would say that if this is what they believe, then I would hope that their daughters and sons would suffer heartbreak at the hands of their romantic playthings. After all, all is fair in love or wwar, and this family is due for a fall.

However, the main point seems to me that some families simply cannot accept that foreign families might be as good (or in many cases better) than native. This is true no matter what race or culture one is discussing. However, it is true that many cultures and/or races do tend to prefer their own. And no one culture or race is automatically better than another. One can always find areas to criticise, and it is apparent that some cultures seem to be better at certain things than other cultures. But when one is dealing with individuals, one must learn that any single individual can be as good or as bad as one wishes.

One's nationality, race or color should be secondary to the personality and talents of the individual in question. This is especially true in cases of romantic involvement. Most mature races have learned that lesson. It is a pity that the Tokugawas, for all their historic achievements, apparently have not progressed to that point.

Reuters Can't Research

Journalists like to tell us about their professionalism and the many layers of editors that ensure their accuracy. However, somewhere in those layers of editors, have reporters lost the ability to perform basic research? In the case of Reuters reporter Jeff Mason, it would seem to be so. Mason wrote an article on California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's Monday speech on global warming, in which he wrote,

President George W. Bush pulled the United States out of the Kyoto accord, saying it unfairly burdened rich countries while exempting developing countries like China and India.

This is a startling revision of history. Apparently Mason forgot, if he ever knew, that although then-President Bill Clinton signed Kyoto, he never submitted the Kyoto treaty to the Senate for ratification. And according to Wikipedia's entry for Kyoto,

The United States (U.S.), although a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the Protocol. The signature alone is symbolic, as the Kyoto Protocol is non-binding on the United States unless ratified.

Mason also neglects to mention the 1997 Byrd-Hagel Resolution against ratifying Kyoto. The Reolution passsed the Senate 95-0 in 1997, and stated that,

Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--

(1) the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997, or thereafter, which would--

(A) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the Annex I Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period, or

(B) would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States; and

(2) any such protocol or other agreement which would require the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification should be accompanied by a detailed explanation of any legislation or regulatory actions that may be required to implement the protocol or other agreement and should also be accompanied by an analysis of the detailed financial costs and other impacts on the economy of the United States which would be incurred by the implementation of the protocol or other agreement.

So to recap, the United States has never 'pulled out' of Kyoto, since we were never in Kyoto. And the treaty, though signed by President Clinton was never submitted to the Senate for ratification since the Senate made clear that they wouldd not ratify Kyoto or any other similar agreement.

All of this information is easily researchable on the Internet, yet Mason neglected to mention it in his rush to accuse President Bush of being anti-environment. Perhaps Mason should tend to his own failings- including learning objectivity and reseach skills before rushing to judgement on easily disprovable accusations such as this. Hat tip to NewsBusters reader Anthony Grafton. Cross-posted on NewsBusters.