What does P & O Ports actually do? You can get a feel for their operations at the P & O Ports website and review actual operations of a specific freight handling operation here. Can you find any actual explanation of their function and purpose by reading this NYT piece? Is the term "port operations" defined at all in the piece? How about here, in this AP piece - any description of what "commercial port operations" entails? Now, here's a Reuter's report - "port operations" again.
So, three renowned news organizations have reported on a major story and provided you with a clear understanding of what is entailed in "port operations" to the point where you can speak or write with assurance concerning the potential security issues involved - right?
Substitute "freight terminal" every time "port operations" is used and realize that what is involved is simply providing the space and facilities to transfer freight from one carrier to another while facilitating the additional paperwork required per custom regulation and international banking rules. "Port operations" are on the same level as any freight transfer point at the Canadian or Mexican border. Or any air freight terminal receiving air freight from overseas. The reporters and media involved in this "story" are deliberately using terminology that implies control over the security of the actual port. P & O exercises no such authority nor will it ever have more responsiblity for security than do J. B. Hunt or Yellow Lines at their respective transfer hubs scattered all over the country. COSCO is a Chinese company which operates the maritime freight hub at the Port of Long Beach in California. Is their "control" of unloading and loading containers also a "security threat"?
Rosen and Lovelady must have trained the clowns who wrote these articles. The sad part is that the writers ultimate dependence upon P.T. Barnum's dictum concerning the frequency at which new customers are created appears completely justified. At least judging from the remarks made by the people whom we have elected to represent us at the greatest clown show on earth.
How much effort do you suppose it might take to bring five pounds of anthrax into the US? Would you spend $7B to do so?
UPDATE: Extra! Extra! An actual factual report has been found! Chuck caught this Christian Science Monitor piece that explains what P & O Ports really does. Google news reports over 1,700 articles written to date on the subject - this one may be written by the only reporter not trained at the Columbia School of Journalism.
If anyone finds another factual report - please mention it in comments and I'll update the post again.
[Updated by Seneca 13:40 Mountain: link to CSM story fixed.]
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Monday, February 20, 2006
Shame
To tell the truth, I'm simmering angry, so I'm not going to write very much on this topic: I'd rather people read it and make their own judgement. What's now the top thread on Jay Rosen's Press Think starts off to be a post on how Cheney wasn't so much mistaken not calling in the White House press s purposefully dissing them. All well and good, and I might even be convinced to agree with him. (Now, Rosen doesn't think this is a good thing, but I frankly do. But that's for another time.)
However, follow down the thread and see what Steve Lovelady, of the Columbia Journalism Review, has to say. It comes down to, basically, that neither the people who talked to the police, nor the police reports themselves in Kenedy County Texas are reliable, because it's a "feudalism."
But that while Lovelady says the reports are unreliable and (apparently) believes they're false, that doesn't mean that he thinks the people involved are "lying."
What's more, it appears that the people involved couldn't be troubled to read the actual police report (at Smoking Gun) or spend the few seconds (literally!) Googling to determine that the guy who was on the scene at the time, Constable Ramiro Medellin, was in fact a police officer listed in the county's web page.
I suggested to Lovelady that he call Constable Medellin and ask his reaction to the suggestion that he made a false report. So far as I can tell, he hasn't tried it yet.
However, follow down the thread and see what Steve Lovelady, of the Columbia Journalism Review, has to say. It comes down to, basically, that neither the people who talked to the police, nor the police reports themselves in Kenedy County Texas are reliable, because it's a "feudalism."
But that while Lovelady says the reports are unreliable and (apparently) believes they're false, that doesn't mean that he thinks the people involved are "lying."
What's more, it appears that the people involved couldn't be troubled to read the actual police report (at Smoking Gun) or spend the few seconds (literally!) Googling to determine that the guy who was on the scene at the time, Constable Ramiro Medellin, was in fact a police officer listed in the county's web page.
I suggested to Lovelady that he call Constable Medellin and ask his reaction to the suggestion that he made a false report. So far as I can tell, he hasn't tried it yet.
Islam means submission
I just read the review by Carlin Romano of While Europe Slept or How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within.. It seems the Europeans forgot they fought these people for a thousand years, and now they have allowed them in their midst not as equals, but as welfare recipients and inmates. A very dangerous subculture of angry and radicalized young men.
Hat tip Roger Simon
Hat tip Roger Simon
Gimme that Ol' Time Religion
I was rather surprised at supper last night to hear one of my dining companions extol the virtues of headhunter society in the South Pacific. The death cult that had sustained them for timeless eons had been destroyed by the introduction of Western ways, you see, and she had just finished reading a book which explained how horribly difficult life has become for the headhunters' descendants, struggling as they are to scrape out a living as minions of some exploitive Western corporation. When my wife objected that headhunting is a rather grisly business probably not entirely worthy of emulation, the woman replied that the author deals with that quite nicely, thank you very much, by juxtaposing images of headhunter barbarisms with imagery of contemporaneous events occurring in World War I-era Europe. See, see! We're evil too! Everybody's the same!
At work I have some colleagues who desire to move to Mexico. They long for it wistfully, seeming to believe it would be just like Colorado, only warmer. What's not to like? When I pointed out to them that Mexico is a nasty place with daily kidnappings of children for ransom, a semi-failed state run by warlords, they replied that they would become the warlords. Now, these people are soft. They have never seen real adversity of any sort. My son tells me they wouldn't last long in Mexico; I reply that they wouldn't even be able to last long in Wichita--too rough for them.
I agree with Mark Steyn: the ever-growing multi-culti neo-Romanticism of the advanced Western world is at base a fraud. These people don't really want to live anywhere but advanced Western society--no one in their right mind does. But there's a gaping failure of imagination here. People are no longer at all capable of imagining that it is possible for there to exist a world that is not advanced Western society. This disease is particularly advanced in the more advanced and safer areas of America, such as California, Seattle, Massachusetts, and Colorado. And since everything in their world is really advanced Western society after all, why not add a little salsa to the mix with a dash of headhunting or Mexican drug gangs, to make life a little more interesting than the bland old corporate mush served up in suburban Colorado?
This is why I believe the predictions of red-State dominance are premature at best and probably inaccurate. With each generation our world becomes a little safer, a little more controlled, a little more sterile, and a little blander. As Morgan has ably stated, we're in a long-term boom right now, which means a whole generation has grown up without the merest whiff of economic adversity. This makes it harder and harder for Westerners to believe that there is such a thing as adversity. It's just a myth, like the Easter Bunny. Since there is absolutely nothing to worry about--there is no Big Bad Wolf--why not dabble in exotic religions like Islam, anyway? How bad can it be? We are increasingly the victims of our own success: the richer we become, the softer and bluer we are.
At work I have some colleagues who desire to move to Mexico. They long for it wistfully, seeming to believe it would be just like Colorado, only warmer. What's not to like? When I pointed out to them that Mexico is a nasty place with daily kidnappings of children for ransom, a semi-failed state run by warlords, they replied that they would become the warlords. Now, these people are soft. They have never seen real adversity of any sort. My son tells me they wouldn't last long in Mexico; I reply that they wouldn't even be able to last long in Wichita--too rough for them.
I agree with Mark Steyn: the ever-growing multi-culti neo-Romanticism of the advanced Western world is at base a fraud. These people don't really want to live anywhere but advanced Western society--no one in their right mind does. But there's a gaping failure of imagination here. People are no longer at all capable of imagining that it is possible for there to exist a world that is not advanced Western society. This disease is particularly advanced in the more advanced and safer areas of America, such as California, Seattle, Massachusetts, and Colorado. And since everything in their world is really advanced Western society after all, why not add a little salsa to the mix with a dash of headhunting or Mexican drug gangs, to make life a little more interesting than the bland old corporate mush served up in suburban Colorado?
This is why I believe the predictions of red-State dominance are premature at best and probably inaccurate. With each generation our world becomes a little safer, a little more controlled, a little more sterile, and a little blander. As Morgan has ably stated, we're in a long-term boom right now, which means a whole generation has grown up without the merest whiff of economic adversity. This makes it harder and harder for Westerners to believe that there is such a thing as adversity. It's just a myth, like the Easter Bunny. Since there is absolutely nothing to worry about--there is no Big Bad Wolf--why not dabble in exotic religions like Islam, anyway? How bad can it be? We are increasingly the victims of our own success: the richer we become, the softer and bluer we are.
Lest We Forget
Bill Roggio continues to provide solid evidence that actual reporting can be an honorable trade. His interview with Col. Davis is a reminder that the fat lady hasn't sung in Iraq quite yet. I was under the impression that security on the Syrian border had improved to the point where very few AQ scum were coming accross. It appears that enough are still coming so that problems remain in some of the cities and towns in al Anbar.
The Red on Red skirmishes are an interesting note. The thought of AQ scum being killed by Baathist deadenders (or vice versa) is always cheering.
The Red on Red skirmishes are an interesting note. The thought of AQ scum being killed by Baathist deadenders (or vice versa) is always cheering.
Sunday, February 19, 2006
Turning up the Heat
We have had a few posts at YARGB about the global warming controversy. I want to consider some information about Ross McKitrick’s article What is the Hockey Stick Debate About? In this article McKitrick addresses several factors that do not seem to get enough play in the media when discussing global warming. I think that the article is somewhat technical, although not beyond the reach of most readers interested in devoting some time to this. I want to summarize his points in a less technical manner. Many of his concerns involve statistics. I have a pretty good background in statistics, having consulted with many psychology students doing dissertations, and I am actively engaged in psychological research. This does not make me infallible, but I have some expertise to lend to that aspect of his thesis. A counterargument to McKitrick is contained on the Real Climate site.
1) The now famous Hockey Stick graph appears to show the earth’s climate as very stable from the years 1000-1900, and then veers upward sharply in the 20th century. Interestingly the projections for the next hundred years all have a clearly linear appearance (i.e., close to being straight lines going up at various angles). It has been ubiquitous and, according to McKitrick, the primary evidence in crafting the Kyoto recommendations.
2) Scientists try to figure out past climate various through various means including temperature proxies, or substitutes, as well as ground borehole data. Older studies had shown a medieval warm period, based on borehole evidence (i.e., literally drilling holes into the earth).
This warm period is problematic for adherents of global warming. The Mann data, upon which the hockey stick is based, used multiple proxies for temperature. This study indicated no such medieval warm period. Stephen McIntyre found a number of errors in the data, and he could not recreate the principle components (a statistical technique that seeks to simplify a vast data array into the most essential components). According to the author Mann refused to provide them with the computer code he used to create the statistical analyses published in Nature.
3) McKitrick suggests that Mann made errors in putting the statistics together. This resulted in a bias being created for a Hockey Stick-like trend in the 20th century. He suggests that the Mann study actually “data-mines” for hockey sticks.
4) Many of thee proxies used in the Hockey Stick study are very problematic, according to McKitrick. In fact experts that study some of these proxies (called bristlecone pine) have clearly indicated that they should not be used as climate proxies. It so happens that these proxies falsely show large temperature increases in the 20th Century (contradicting other data gathered in geographic proximity to the bristlecone pines). Drop that data and the Hockey Stick goes with it.
5) In the Hockey Stick study, there were insufficient proxies used to calculate many of the temperatures in the medieval period. Extrapolations were used (i.e., guesses, albeit sophisticated). Remove the poor data sources and redo the analysis and the medieval warm period reappears and greatly influences the look of the overall graph.
You can look at this comparison between the two studies. Now, there are arguments back and forth, and this can be very technical information. However, how many journalists have the expertise to report on this and do so fairly? Obviously this doesn’t settle the matter, but climatology is extremely complex, but so is statistical modeling, in any discipline. And with any statistics, GIGO is always relevant.
1) The now famous Hockey Stick graph appears to show the earth’s climate as very stable from the years 1000-1900, and then veers upward sharply in the 20th century. Interestingly the projections for the next hundred years all have a clearly linear appearance (i.e., close to being straight lines going up at various angles). It has been ubiquitous and, according to McKitrick, the primary evidence in crafting the Kyoto recommendations.
2) Scientists try to figure out past climate various through various means including temperature proxies, or substitutes, as well as ground borehole data. Older studies had shown a medieval warm period, based on borehole evidence (i.e., literally drilling holes into the earth).
This warm period is problematic for adherents of global warming. The Mann data, upon which the hockey stick is based, used multiple proxies for temperature. This study indicated no such medieval warm period. Stephen McIntyre found a number of errors in the data, and he could not recreate the principle components (a statistical technique that seeks to simplify a vast data array into the most essential components). According to the author Mann refused to provide them with the computer code he used to create the statistical analyses published in Nature.
3) McKitrick suggests that Mann made errors in putting the statistics together. This resulted in a bias being created for a Hockey Stick-like trend in the 20th century. He suggests that the Mann study actually “data-mines” for hockey sticks.
4) Many of thee proxies used in the Hockey Stick study are very problematic, according to McKitrick. In fact experts that study some of these proxies (called bristlecone pine) have clearly indicated that they should not be used as climate proxies. It so happens that these proxies falsely show large temperature increases in the 20th Century (contradicting other data gathered in geographic proximity to the bristlecone pines). Drop that data and the Hockey Stick goes with it.
5) In the Hockey Stick study, there were insufficient proxies used to calculate many of the temperatures in the medieval period. Extrapolations were used (i.e., guesses, albeit sophisticated). Remove the poor data sources and redo the analysis and the medieval warm period reappears and greatly influences the look of the overall graph.
You can look at this comparison between the two studies. Now, there are arguments back and forth, and this can be very technical information. However, how many journalists have the expertise to report on this and do so fairly? Obviously this doesn’t settle the matter, but climatology is extremely complex, but so is statistical modeling, in any discipline. And with any statistics, GIGO is always relevant.
Raving on about Jihad
I love John Howard. He might not be much to look at, but the little feller has courage. Courtesy The Australian
While making comparisons between immigrants from such countries as Greece and immigrants from Muslim countries, he said: There is no equivalent of raving on about jihad, but that is the major problem.
Hat tip InstaPundit .
While making comparisons between immigrants from such countries as Greece and immigrants from Muslim countries, he said: There is no equivalent of raving on about jihad, but that is the major problem.
Hat tip InstaPundit .
Seneca, This One's for You.
Crabfu. And don't forget to visit the steam toys.
Update:
If you need more bizarre intertainment, try this video of William Shatner with Joe Jackson. HT Judith at Kesher Talk .
Update:
If you need more bizarre intertainment, try this video of William Shatner with Joe Jackson. HT Judith at Kesher Talk .
A Little Bit of Knowledge...
What do these these images have in common?
The answer is: Michael Leunig and Evil Bert. The first picture comes from a recent Motoons protest in NYC, the second from a 2001 demonstration in Bangladesh supporting the Taliban. Some trickster submitted one of Leunig's cartoons to the Iranian newspaper's anti-semitic cartoon contest; evidently a quick websearch led the protesters to connect him to the Danish cartoons because, well, he is a cartoonist. What makes this funny is that Leunig is a sensitive supporter of the Islamists. Something similar happened with the Evil Bert poster: someone in Bangladesh went looking for Osama images to put on the banners and up popped Bert. So it goes in a world where the internet puts the raw materials at everyone's fingertips but where actual knowlege is sometimes in short supply.
The best response to all this is laughter and ridicule. Yeah, I'm cruel that way.
Behavior that is rewarded, is reinforced.
Dr Helen makes an interesting observation:
It's an interesting problem, not just with Islam in Europe, but more generally. People tend to do what for which they're rewarded; in fact, I think you can look at it the other way, and in general figure that if there is some persistent behavior that you don't like, it's because there's some reward to it that you haven't recognized.
The problem with ever so much of what governments do, is that they tend to reinforce what they presumably want to reduce.
You would think that governments as well as people in general would understand that appeasing and rewarding negative behavior doesn't work. It's basic psychology 101--but one that not even most psychology professors understand or put to use. And apparently, this concept is foreign to many of the politically correct persuasion outside the classroom as well--for them, their feeling of moral "superiority" trumps human nature and causes liberals to turn a blind eye to justice and acts of violence.
In Bruce Bawer's new book, While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within, the side effects of the appeasement of Muslims by the Danish government are clear--as their government pumps more and more welfare money into the pockets of disgruntled Muslims, the rate of violence against "infidels" there increases.
It's an interesting problem, not just with Islam in Europe, but more generally. People tend to do what for which they're rewarded; in fact, I think you can look at it the other way, and in general figure that if there is some persistent behavior that you don't like, it's because there's some reward to it that you haven't recognized.
The problem with ever so much of what governments do, is that they tend to reinforce what they presumably want to reduce.
Flemming Rose speaks
Flemming Rose, the culture editor of the Danish paper Jyllands-Posten answers critics in a Washington Post article entitled Why I Published Those Cartoons .
LOL
Bored of Mo'toons yet? Well, since it seems the trickster Jews are again kicking sand in the faces of honest antisemites, just wait until the Muslim brothers get going and start matching blows in this latest game of those Zionist Media Zebras (ZMZ: what's black and white and red all over?):
Eyal Zusman (30, back from anonymity) and Amitai Sandy (29), graphic artist and publisher of Dimona Comix Publishing, from Tel-Aviv, Israel, have followed the unfolding of the “Muhammad cartoon-gate” events in amazement, until finally they came up with the right answer to all this insanity - and so they announced today the launch of a new anti-Semitic cartoons contest - this time drawn by Jews themselves!(HT Mika, commenting at Belmont Club where you will find a seriously cracker-jack debate on how the west can win the information war with radical Islam.
“We’ll show the world we can do the best, sharpest, most offensive Jew hating cartoons ever published!” said Sandy “No Iranian will beat us on our home turf!”
The contest has been announced today on the www.boomka.org website, and the initiators accept submissions of cartoons, caricatures and short comic strips from people all over the world. The deadline is Sunday March 5, and the best works will be displayed in an Exhibition in Tel-Aviv, Israel.
Saturday, February 18, 2006
What is with the attitude?
I realize that different people have different opinions. I even think it is possible for very good and decent people to completely disagree on an issue, but when it comes to the war in Iraq, when it comes to removing a brutal dictator from power, it seems the anti war people have no desire for open debate.
I do not know if you all have been following the saga on Powerline involving the Progress for America ads featuring Iraqi War veterans and some of their family members coming out in support of their mission in Iraq; but it is a real eye opener as far as the lengths anti war types are willing to go to attack that mission. I have to say up front that I have not seen the ads.
It seems the anti war folks will even attack the veterans themselves. Among the culprits, members of the Minnesota Democratic Party leadership and reporter Nick Coleman for the Star Tribune. The following is a letter from a soldier to Mr. Coleman:
Dear Mr. Coleman:
I'm an active duty Army Officer who recently returned from Iraq and must respond to your columns attacking Iraqi War Veterans and Gold Star Parents. I'm troubled that you have been both dishonest and blatantly partisan. Let's start with last Sunday's column.
While attacking the honesty of Iraqi service veterans you "conveniently" failed to mention the truth about your major "nonpartisan" source, Paul Rieckhoff, of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA). Rieckhoff was a delegate to the 2004 Democratic National Convention, a state Chairman for Veterans for Kerry and in 2003 delivered the Democratic Party Saturday counter radio response for one of President Bush's radio addresses. You also mislabeled ex-Governor Jesse Ventura, an IAVA board advisor, as a "nonpartisan." Who do think you're kidding?
No, the war is not going "swimmingly," but most service members who have recently been in Iraq will tell you we are winning. I'm not sure what poll Mr. Rieckhoff was quoting in your column but the Military Times 2005 Iraq Poll of our service members (released January 2006) has some interesting results. The Poll found that 73% of the respondents believe it's likely the United States will succeed in Iraq. Four of every five respondents said they believe media reports often are "inaccurate." However you seem to feel the First Amendment freedom of speech does not apply to the very service people who fight for that freedom unless they support your agenda.
What angers me the most is how in your Friday column you turned really nasty with attacks on the Gold Star families in the second ad.
In your world stepparents -- some who actually raised the fallen service member -- have even less right to speak their minds than veterans. By implying that a fallen soldier's stepmother was not his "mom" is viciously ignorant and hateful on your part. Perhaps you should also stop using the radical Daily Kos for your material or identify them as your source.
Let's debunk your "Big Lie" while we are at it, that we went to war only because of WMD's. The Congressional authorization to use force in Iraq was a bipartisan vote of 77 Senators and 296 US House members listing 16 reasons they were approving military action. WMD's were only one of those 16. Many nations believed the same intelligence we did.
The bottom line is most of us in the military know what is at stake in the War on Terror and believe radical liberals like you can't be trusted with our National Defense. We in the military are proud to protect the rights guaranteed Americans by our Constitution, but both sides of the war argument share those rights. It is unfortunate that you feel that veterans and Gold Star parents have no right to voice their opinion unless it is against the War. This is the real disservice to our troops and our fallen heroes. Shame on you Mr. Coleman, you appear to be a very hateful person!
Respectfully,
Joe Repya
Lieutenant Colonel, US Army
101ST Airborne Division (Air Assault)
Fort Campbell, KY
A veteran of Vietnam, the Gulf War and Operation Iraqi Freedom
Col. Repya's letter refers to Coleman's attack on the second Progress for America ad for presenting M.J. Kesterson in a context that would cause viewers to conclude she was Erik Kesterson's mother when she was in fact his stepmother. via Powerline.
Mrs. Kesterson is the stepmother of a soldier. It seems there was some discussion as to whether or not she really counts. Blood is thicker than water doncha know. What nasty little people. For years I have been listening to self righteous sanctimonious people like this whine that the US deals with dictators, we do not do enough to liberate the oppressed etc. We do just that and remove one of the most brutal dictators of our times from power and they go over the deep end.
Why? I think it is because their great claim to fame is Rhwanda and million dead people. Someone needed them and they failed to come to the rescue. They failed.
The right wingers stole their thunder in the power to the people arena. Their own back yard. Well, they had their chance...eight years of Clinton and not only did they fail, they opened the door to 9/11. That is where the attitude comes from. They know they are full of it and they can not stand it.
And as if on cue the Islamic world ignites, not because of Iraq but because of cartoons. Why it is as if some of those people were fanatics who could not be reasoned with. They not only do not want to see democracy in the Middle East, they do not want to see it in Denmark.
The only hope is the Bush Doctrine, it may not work...but at least it acknowledges that there is an enemy and it is not us.
I do not know if you all have been following the saga on Powerline involving the Progress for America ads featuring Iraqi War veterans and some of their family members coming out in support of their mission in Iraq; but it is a real eye opener as far as the lengths anti war types are willing to go to attack that mission. I have to say up front that I have not seen the ads.
It seems the anti war folks will even attack the veterans themselves. Among the culprits, members of the Minnesota Democratic Party leadership and reporter Nick Coleman for the Star Tribune. The following is a letter from a soldier to Mr. Coleman:
Dear Mr. Coleman:
I'm an active duty Army Officer who recently returned from Iraq and must respond to your columns attacking Iraqi War Veterans and Gold Star Parents. I'm troubled that you have been both dishonest and blatantly partisan. Let's start with last Sunday's column.
While attacking the honesty of Iraqi service veterans you "conveniently" failed to mention the truth about your major "nonpartisan" source, Paul Rieckhoff, of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA). Rieckhoff was a delegate to the 2004 Democratic National Convention, a state Chairman for Veterans for Kerry and in 2003 delivered the Democratic Party Saturday counter radio response for one of President Bush's radio addresses. You also mislabeled ex-Governor Jesse Ventura, an IAVA board advisor, as a "nonpartisan." Who do think you're kidding?
No, the war is not going "swimmingly," but most service members who have recently been in Iraq will tell you we are winning. I'm not sure what poll Mr. Rieckhoff was quoting in your column but the Military Times 2005 Iraq Poll of our service members (released January 2006) has some interesting results. The Poll found that 73% of the respondents believe it's likely the United States will succeed in Iraq. Four of every five respondents said they believe media reports often are "inaccurate." However you seem to feel the First Amendment freedom of speech does not apply to the very service people who fight for that freedom unless they support your agenda.
What angers me the most is how in your Friday column you turned really nasty with attacks on the Gold Star families in the second ad.
In your world stepparents -- some who actually raised the fallen service member -- have even less right to speak their minds than veterans. By implying that a fallen soldier's stepmother was not his "mom" is viciously ignorant and hateful on your part. Perhaps you should also stop using the radical Daily Kos for your material or identify them as your source.
Let's debunk your "Big Lie" while we are at it, that we went to war only because of WMD's. The Congressional authorization to use force in Iraq was a bipartisan vote of 77 Senators and 296 US House members listing 16 reasons they were approving military action. WMD's were only one of those 16. Many nations believed the same intelligence we did.
The bottom line is most of us in the military know what is at stake in the War on Terror and believe radical liberals like you can't be trusted with our National Defense. We in the military are proud to protect the rights guaranteed Americans by our Constitution, but both sides of the war argument share those rights. It is unfortunate that you feel that veterans and Gold Star parents have no right to voice their opinion unless it is against the War. This is the real disservice to our troops and our fallen heroes. Shame on you Mr. Coleman, you appear to be a very hateful person!
Respectfully,
Joe Repya
Lieutenant Colonel, US Army
101ST Airborne Division (Air Assault)
Fort Campbell, KY
A veteran of Vietnam, the Gulf War and Operation Iraqi Freedom
Col. Repya's letter refers to Coleman's attack on the second Progress for America ad for presenting M.J. Kesterson in a context that would cause viewers to conclude she was Erik Kesterson's mother when she was in fact his stepmother. via Powerline.
Mrs. Kesterson is the stepmother of a soldier. It seems there was some discussion as to whether or not she really counts. Blood is thicker than water doncha know. What nasty little people. For years I have been listening to self righteous sanctimonious people like this whine that the US deals with dictators, we do not do enough to liberate the oppressed etc. We do just that and remove one of the most brutal dictators of our times from power and they go over the deep end.
Why? I think it is because their great claim to fame is Rhwanda and million dead people. Someone needed them and they failed to come to the rescue. They failed.
The right wingers stole their thunder in the power to the people arena. Their own back yard. Well, they had their chance...eight years of Clinton and not only did they fail, they opened the door to 9/11. That is where the attitude comes from. They know they are full of it and they can not stand it.
And as if on cue the Islamic world ignites, not because of Iraq but because of cartoons. Why it is as if some of those people were fanatics who could not be reasoned with. They not only do not want to see democracy in the Middle East, they do not want to see it in Denmark.
The only hope is the Bush Doctrine, it may not work...but at least it acknowledges that there is an enemy and it is not us.
Friday, February 17, 2006
For shame
So much for the greatest generation.
I wish there was some way we could these little parasites off from one single dime of federal money.
The University of Washington declines to honour former student and WWII flying ace Col. Gregory “Pappy” Boyington. Among those who opposed:
Jill Edwards questioned whether it was appropriate to honor a person who killed other people.
Over in Canada, plans proceed to honour draft dodgers with a creepy hippie statue:
The proposal calls for a sculpture of two Americans, a male and a female, crossing an imaginary border where a Canadian figure is waiting to welcome them.
As Clear and Present Danger reports: “They’re so liberal they even felt they had to create a female draft dodger.”
via Tim Blair
You can read a synopsis on Col. Boyington's exploits here.
UPDATE:
The Lt. Col. Gregory "Pappy" Boyington Memorial Scholarship Fund. scholarships . This is a scholarship fund for Marines or the children of Marines.
I wish there was some way we could these little parasites off from one single dime of federal money.
The University of Washington declines to honour former student and WWII flying ace Col. Gregory “Pappy” Boyington. Among those who opposed:
Jill Edwards questioned whether it was appropriate to honor a person who killed other people.
Over in Canada, plans proceed to honour draft dodgers with a creepy hippie statue:
The proposal calls for a sculpture of two Americans, a male and a female, crossing an imaginary border where a Canadian figure is waiting to welcome them.
As Clear and Present Danger reports: “They’re so liberal they even felt they had to create a female draft dodger.”
via Tim Blair
You can read a synopsis on Col. Boyington's exploits here.
UPDATE:
The Lt. Col. Gregory "Pappy" Boyington Memorial Scholarship Fund. scholarships . This is a scholarship fund for Marines or the children of Marines.
Ltnt. Dan speaks
I got this in my email about a newsmax interview with Gary Sinise:
Sinise recently spoke exclusively with NewsMax's James Hirsen, and in the wide-ranging interview the star:
* Berates the media over coverage of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, and tells of a talk he had with a journalist who admitted the press focuses on negative stories in the Middle East because "bad news sells."
* Confide the events of 9/11 changed his view of the world, making him feel "very vulnerable in this country."
* Stresses the dangers the U.S. faces in the war against terror, saying that if the 9/11 attackers "could have killed 300,000 instead of 3,000, they would have been all the happier about that."
* Recalls how the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut affected him deeply.
* Bemoans the treatment of U.S. soldiers by many Americans during the Vietnam War. "They were called baby killers and everything else," he said, even though they "might have been feeding a bunch of starving kids over there in a village." He declares: "That should never happen again."
* Discusses how his Operation Iraqi Children is helping to win the hearts and minds of ordinary Iraqis.
* Talks about the values he is trying to instill in his teenage children - and how working on a TV show differs from acting in a movie.
Nice to know there are still guys like this in Hollywood.
Sinise recently spoke exclusively with NewsMax's James Hirsen, and in the wide-ranging interview the star:
* Berates the media over coverage of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, and tells of a talk he had with a journalist who admitted the press focuses on negative stories in the Middle East because "bad news sells."
* Confide the events of 9/11 changed his view of the world, making him feel "very vulnerable in this country."
* Stresses the dangers the U.S. faces in the war against terror, saying that if the 9/11 attackers "could have killed 300,000 instead of 3,000, they would have been all the happier about that."
* Recalls how the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut affected him deeply.
* Bemoans the treatment of U.S. soldiers by many Americans during the Vietnam War. "They were called baby killers and everything else," he said, even though they "might have been feeding a bunch of starving kids over there in a village." He declares: "That should never happen again."
* Discusses how his Operation Iraqi Children is helping to win the hearts and minds of ordinary Iraqis.
* Talks about the values he is trying to instill in his teenage children - and how working on a TV show differs from acting in a movie.
Nice to know there are still guys like this in Hollywood.
Rollback?
Mark Tapscott makes some useful points, riffing off Jay Rosen:
Unless one is prepared to argue a conspiracy theory - Cheney used the delay between the accident and when the call was made to the newspaper to shape what was said to the reporter and to local law enforcement authorities - it is clear Cheney thought a local newspaper was more likely to report the accident accurately than a confrontational, liberally biased White House press corps.
The context for that decision is simple: Like it or not, the mainstream national media long ago lost much of its credibility with the public and has for many years been losing great chunks of its audience to Talk Radio, cable news and the Internet. The MSM is no longer the mainstream or national.
Indeed, one can make the case that entirely apart from ideological considerations it is rapidly becoming possible to communicate effectively with the general public without according the shrinking mainstream media anything remotely like the respect it once commanded. And still demands.
And nobody in this or any other White House is naive or stupid enough to think they can silence Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly or Powerline. Or DailyKos, MyDD or Comments from Left Field. Or PressThink, Tapscott's Copy Desk or (Lord help them if they ever try) Jeff Jarvis!
Bottomline: Rollback means "reality check."
Thursday, February 16, 2006
A Useful Illustration
According to press reports, Cheney was shooting #7½ birdshot. The illustration below shows various sizes of shot in relation to a penny:
You Are All Journalists Now
A multi-billion dollar business isn't going to go down the tubes quietly. The legacy media will do everything they can to ensure they remain in business. The first line of defence was to ignore the blogs entirely. The second, now being played out, is the plethora of recent stories in the NYT, the WSJ, and elsewhere which cast the Internet itself as a nefarious siren of corruption insinuating itself into our living rooms. It enables child pornography, it allows stalkers to do their stalking, etc., etc.--all the usual boogeymen of the Twenty-First Century. (It aids the terrorists too--they use Google maps--but that's not an Official Boogeyman so it isn't mentioned.)
The Internet-as-demon defence isn't likely to work much better than the blogs-don't-exist approach. The third line of defence will be a legal attack--bloggers will be assailed as "contributors" to political campaigns, and the creeping censorship of our ever more draconian election laws will be used to stifle the new media. You read it here first.
There is hope. The FEC quietly ruled last autumn that bloggers do qualify for the "journalist" exception to the campaign finance laws. "The Commission concludes that the costs Fired Up [a set of blogs] incurs in covering or carrying news stories, commentary, or editorials on its websites are encompassed by the press
exception, and therefore do not constitute 'expenditures' or 'contributions' under the
Act and Commission regulations." Full link.
What, you didn't read the reports of this in the legacy media? All of you who are contributing to this site through posts or comments, go look yourself in the nearest mirror and proudly affirm: "I am a journalist now!". Er, on the other hand, maybe you want to retain your self-esteem. Don't expect the legacy media to take this lying down however. Expect Prominent People in the legacy party to do their utmost to help their allies in the legacy media. Blogs are the true voice of the people, a title the rich and powerful elites of the Northeast have arrogated to themselves for a long time. It will be interesting to see how the forces of blogger-democracy fare when pitted against the forces of old-money old-boy established East-coast Ivy-league power politics. Good luck to us.
The Internet-as-demon defence isn't likely to work much better than the blogs-don't-exist approach. The third line of defence will be a legal attack--bloggers will be assailed as "contributors" to political campaigns, and the creeping censorship of our ever more draconian election laws will be used to stifle the new media. You read it here first.
There is hope. The FEC quietly ruled last autumn that bloggers do qualify for the "journalist" exception to the campaign finance laws. "The Commission concludes that the costs Fired Up [a set of blogs] incurs in covering or carrying news stories, commentary, or editorials on its websites are encompassed by the press
exception, and therefore do not constitute 'expenditures' or 'contributions' under the
Act and Commission regulations." Full link.
What, you didn't read the reports of this in the legacy media? All of you who are contributing to this site through posts or comments, go look yourself in the nearest mirror and proudly affirm: "I am a journalist now!". Er, on the other hand, maybe you want to retain your self-esteem. Don't expect the legacy media to take this lying down however. Expect Prominent People in the legacy party to do their utmost to help their allies in the legacy media. Blogs are the true voice of the people, a title the rich and powerful elites of the Northeast have arrogated to themselves for a long time. It will be interesting to see how the forces of blogger-democracy fare when pitted against the forces of old-money old-boy established East-coast Ivy-league power politics. Good luck to us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)