The execution of Saddam Hussein, (for his crimes against humanity), has given us an opportunity to observe---and define what has transpired, and the impact that this event has bestowed on today's American society. Let us not quibble with the lateral, for there is little parallel within the divisions of our perspectives.
An articulate example can be found in Ed Morrissey's post at Captain's Quarters yesterday. The Captain was pointing to an example of a report on a local television station describing the demise of a dictator as an "assassination". While part of the debate in comments is on weather the anchor was reading from a script or editorializing on his own, much of the commentary was centered on the perspective of how the mainstream media continues to distort or (by their own agenda), remind their viewer-ship of the "blunders of Bush" and the "miss-directions" of prosecuting our war against terrorism.
It was said ,(shortly after the execution of Hussein), that the world breathed a sigh of relief and reflection in what one man had done to a nation for three decades. And history should record that Hussein will be mentioned with the likes of Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot as one who had no regard for the sanctity of human life----- but this position would not last any longer than it would take for our liberal friends to tie this event to what they perceive as the faults of American Imperialism, for we as a society have no right to impose our free and democratic idealism on other nations (who, every generation or so), tend to breed an ideology of brutality beyond the comprehension of the human mind. In our liberal friends minds, we should some how ignore the genocide as a "natural event" and look inward to our own faults and aspirations, ie our President and his cowboy quest for the control of petro-dollars and lining the pockets of his constituents. In some of our liberal friends minds, we are the brutality that infest the world, and it is all George Bush's fault ----- where in lies the misconception.
Our "elite media", does not care about what is right or wrong in the justification of freeing a society that allowed it's leaders to exterminate its competition, (and yes, control the free flow of oil in the worlds economy) ---- their agenda is far more local. They believe that it is the governments responsibility to provide our every whim and need, and that capitalism and free enterprise is a sin of our own undertaking. "Sharing" the profits of the entrepreneur, (weather it be corporations or individuals who engineered their own wealth), is, (in the liberals mind), a responsibility, and if they have their way it would become constitutional law. "Pay as you go" to our friends on the left is just another example of their tax and spend policy's of the seventies that plunged this nation into double digit inflation and higher taxes that most always puts the burden on the consumer.
While the taxation of the wage earner was originally formed to provide for the infrastructure of our young nation, ie schools, hospitals, roads and later the provisions for social security, when the dollars came flowing in, some of our "leaders" saw this as a perpetual mechanism for a society, (our government) to be the providers. Thus the welfare state was created by those who were too blind to see the dependency that would consume our resources.The battle between the "re-distribution of wealth", (communism), and a free market enterprise with low taxation and limited government, (and yes Reagan trickle down economics), has been going on for more than a generation and there are two distinct sides.
And this is where the disdain and outright hatred for our current president resides within the majority of the democratic party and the radical left. ( I must include that the responsibility of maintaining a smaller government with a balanced budget was a poorly handled by the conservatives who have lost power in congress and the "true" conservatives showed their displeasure thru-out the last two sessions.)
But I digress.
I still believe in my heart and soul that the people of Iraq deserve a shot at the freedoms that we take for granted here. And yes, our Presidents grand scheme of civil and "democratic" societies through-out the world vs. dictatorships that breed the likes of Hussein and now his Iranian counterpart, would be more representative of a peaceful world. It should be a goal to promote the idea that all civil societies could resolve their differences with their voices instead of bloodshed, and poisoned ideologies that are bent on the extermination of entire nations.
For some of our friends on the left to suggest that our President and Vice President should be hanged for crimes considered similar to Saddam Hussein is not only ludicrous, it is a shameful embarrassment to intelligent and thoughtful people of this great nation. These would be the same people who would suggest that Gerald Ford should have been hanged for having the capacity to forgive the "sins" of Richard Nixon. There is no logical comparison between our leaders and Saddam Hussein except in the minds of these lost souls.
(Kos and the Huffpo "mentality" come to mind.)
And that's all I have to say about that.................... for now.
Random Numbers has a short poll on Hussein's Hanging
Sunday, December 31, 2006
Saturday, December 30, 2006
FINAL EXIT
Pond scum hung. Gene pool diminished. Torque specifications prove correct. Headlines may come and go......
...But history will say that in the last few days of the winter of '06 justice was served, (swiftly, by our standards), by a newly formed independent government who showed little patience in turning a vicious chapter in the lives of a free, and yes, independent people of Iraq.
And the tyrant who perpetrated mayhem on a nation for the better part of quarter of a century did not go quietly. According to one witness, Police Captain Jamil Hussein, (no relation), Saddam Hussein was heard to be just as defiant in his execution as he was during his trial of crimes against humanity. Jamil Hussein said he was certain the Saddam was also doused in kerosene and burned alive. (Hell, if AP can fabricate, so can I)
At just after 6 a.m. (10 p.m. Friday ET), the executioner activated the gallows as Saddam Hussein uttered his last words that the people of Iraq and indeed the world would have to hear.
As for the legacy of Hussein, he will be forever compared to other despots of human destruction. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and now Saddam Hussien will be used in the same sentence when describing "human beings" who showed little regard for humanity. But, while our friends on the left will say that it was not worth the sacrifice paid by many, the majority of the people of Iraq will disagree.
While many are left pondering the finality of this execution, (and its ramifications), the people of Iraq can say justice was served, and it did not come soon enough. We can all hope that turning this page in history will lead to a more peaceful and civil society in the middle east.
And one final judgement awaits Saddam Hussein. May his sins of atonement be handled in the manner of the way they were passed out.
Others blogging:
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Blogging-Lite
Due to weather and major damage to our local ISP, Rovinsworld will be lingering to catch up with the events..........(it may take a few days to reload)
In the mean time, please use the links and visit some of my favorite sites.
Update: Curt at Flopping Aces has the latest on the Jamil Hussein Saga: Read it here
In the mean time, please use the links and visit some of my favorite sites.
Update: Curt at Flopping Aces has the latest on the Jamil Hussein Saga: Read it here
Sunday, December 24, 2006
Unto the World.....A Savior is Born
As we celebrate the birth of Christ and give thanks for all the blessings He has bestowed upon us, let us pray for all of those who have more pressing needs. For, as a nation, we are truly blessed in the abundance of what we perceive to be our wants and ambitions. Give thanks for the message as well as the messenger.
Dear Lord, as we remember Your Precious Gift to us this blessed holiday, forgive us, have mercy on us, may the Holy Spirit strengthen us to persevere in the Holy Name of Jesus. Amen
May the Lord bless you all.......Have a safe and Merry Christmas
Dear Lord, as we remember Your Precious Gift to us this blessed holiday, forgive us, have mercy on us, may the Holy Spirit strengthen us to persevere in the Holy Name of Jesus. Amen
May the Lord bless you all.......Have a safe and Merry Christmas
Charles Kenneth
Saturday, December 23, 2006
Navy Class
I used to hear storys about how the Marines and Navy boys despised each other just a little less than they both cared for the Army. But, back in WWII, it was the enemy that feared and respected them all. Here's a feel good story about "Navy Class:
(H/T Michelle Malkin)
Stranger gets Marines home for holidays Chance meeting leads to 23-hour van trip to Colorado---
As far as Stacey Kible is concerned, Santa drives a Ford Windstar. Kible was despairing that her son Matt Kible, a 20-year-old Marine, would not make it home for Christmas. Matt, who is stationed in Japan, was stranded at San Francisco International Airport. He was told that he probably wouldn't be able to get a flight to Denver until Christmas Day. Matt Kible met three fellow Marines at the airport, all of them trying to get back to Denver. Two were returning from Iraq.
The four young Marines commiserated that they might not be able to be with their families at Christmas. None of them was old enough to rent a car, and the blizzard that descended on Denver seemed about to ruin their plans.
"Our hopes and dreams were shot when they told us we couldn't get home for Christmas Eve," said Chris Redlin, a 21-year-old Marine from Aurora who is also stationed at Okinawa.
Then a stranger came bearing gifts.
Now that's class Paul Deines, and Semper Fi Marines
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Paging Jamil Hussein II
While the "sphere" continues to search for the now infamous Capt. Jamil Hussein, Curt at Flopping Aces has a full scale UPDATE. Also Powerline and Big Lizzards have re-entered the fray.
From Powerline:
The saga of Associated Press source Jamil Hussein continues. Hussein has been cited in no fewer than 61 AP stories, most or all relating to violent incidents in pretty much all quarters of Baghdad. The AP has consistently identified Hussein as a "police captain," and has named two police stations with which he allegedly has been associated.
The controversy began when the AP used Hussein as its chief source for a sensational story about six Sunnis being dragged from a mosque and burned alive by a Shia militia. Doubts were expressed by the Iraqi government, as well as the U.S. Army, about whether the incident occurred, and official Iraqi sources stated further that there is no "police captain Jamil Hussein" in Baghdad.
Michelle Malkin sums up the current state of the search for the elusive Captain Hussein. Suffice it to say that it appears increasingly improbable that such a person exists. Given that he has ostensibly been in frequent contact with AP reporters--frequent enough to be cited as a source at least 61 times--it is hard to understand why the AP is apparently unable to produce him. Also, to the best of my knowledge Captain Hussein has not been used as a source by the AP since the controversy became public. Why not? Will he ever appear as a source again? If not, what inferences can we draw? (complete post)
Dafydd at Big Lizzards draws a parallel to AP's alleged fabrications in the story of a Lieutenant Kije:
In a 1927 short story by Yury Tynyanov, a Russian general is reading a report to Czar Paul I; the czar mishears a word and thinks the general is talking about a "Lieutenant Kije," who sounds like a brave and brilliant fellow. Czar Paul demands to hear more about him.
As it is death to contradict the czar, the general makes up several wonderful missions and adventures of the entirely fictitious Lieutenant Kije. Soon other commanders join in the fun; eventually, there is an entire cottage industry of Kije sightings, Kije adventures, and Kije romances. Lt. Kije eventually gets married -- and while the czar never seems to run into the fellow himself, the soldiers sure do enjoy all the vodka the czar supplies!
The story was turned into a movie in 1934 by Aleksandr Fajntsimmer, with music by Prokofiev (the music is much more famous than either the movie or the story). (complete post here)
Michelle Malkin has an excellent post up titled Tracing "Jamil Hussein's" footsteps and ignoring anti-blog hatred Please go and read the whole recap.
From AP:
"The Iraq war is one of hundreds of conflicts that AP journalists have covered in the past 160 years. Our only goal is to provide fair, impartial coverage of important human events as they unfold. We check our facts and check again."
"That is what we have done in the case of the Hurriyah attack. And that is why we stand by our story."
Kathleen Carroll, Executive Editor and Senior Vice President. The Associated Press
I certainly hope Ms. Carroll doesn't expect us to start looking back at 160 years of reporting "truthful" events. This may take a little time.
UPDATE: I found this little tidbit of tripe from CBS/AP: (Public Eye)?? :
It appears the "big guns" are circling the wagons and blaming both sides for the bias. (When ya refuse to find fault, always best to point the finger at both sides):
"In that sense, the outlets that exist for the explicit purpose of rooting out bias - liberal or conservative -- don't necessarily help so much. Certainly, biases exist, and sometimes they are reflected inappropriately. But if you're looking hard enough for bias one way or the other, you'll probably find it - maybe even both ways." (complete post)
Major news sources have just as much at stake here for the obvious reasons. With the like's of Mapes, Rather, CNN and Jordan, and now AP, how much of "historical facts" will need revision?
From Powerline:
The saga of Associated Press source Jamil Hussein continues. Hussein has been cited in no fewer than 61 AP stories, most or all relating to violent incidents in pretty much all quarters of Baghdad. The AP has consistently identified Hussein as a "police captain," and has named two police stations with which he allegedly has been associated.
The controversy began when the AP used Hussein as its chief source for a sensational story about six Sunnis being dragged from a mosque and burned alive by a Shia militia. Doubts were expressed by the Iraqi government, as well as the U.S. Army, about whether the incident occurred, and official Iraqi sources stated further that there is no "police captain Jamil Hussein" in Baghdad.
Michelle Malkin sums up the current state of the search for the elusive Captain Hussein. Suffice it to say that it appears increasingly improbable that such a person exists. Given that he has ostensibly been in frequent contact with AP reporters--frequent enough to be cited as a source at least 61 times--it is hard to understand why the AP is apparently unable to produce him. Also, to the best of my knowledge Captain Hussein has not been used as a source by the AP since the controversy became public. Why not? Will he ever appear as a source again? If not, what inferences can we draw? (complete post)
Dafydd at Big Lizzards draws a parallel to AP's alleged fabrications in the story of a Lieutenant Kije:
In a 1927 short story by Yury Tynyanov, a Russian general is reading a report to Czar Paul I; the czar mishears a word and thinks the general is talking about a "Lieutenant Kije," who sounds like a brave and brilliant fellow. Czar Paul demands to hear more about him.
As it is death to contradict the czar, the general makes up several wonderful missions and adventures of the entirely fictitious Lieutenant Kije. Soon other commanders join in the fun; eventually, there is an entire cottage industry of Kije sightings, Kije adventures, and Kije romances. Lt. Kije eventually gets married -- and while the czar never seems to run into the fellow himself, the soldiers sure do enjoy all the vodka the czar supplies!
The story was turned into a movie in 1934 by Aleksandr Fajntsimmer, with music by Prokofiev (the music is much more famous than either the movie or the story). (complete post here)
Michelle Malkin has an excellent post up titled Tracing "Jamil Hussein's" footsteps and ignoring anti-blog hatred Please go and read the whole recap.
From AP:
"The Iraq war is one of hundreds of conflicts that AP journalists have covered in the past 160 years. Our only goal is to provide fair, impartial coverage of important human events as they unfold. We check our facts and check again."
"That is what we have done in the case of the Hurriyah attack. And that is why we stand by our story."
Kathleen Carroll, Executive Editor and Senior Vice President. The Associated Press
I certainly hope Ms. Carroll doesn't expect us to start looking back at 160 years of reporting "truthful" events. This may take a little time.
UPDATE: I found this little tidbit of tripe from CBS/AP: (Public Eye)?? :
It appears the "big guns" are circling the wagons and blaming both sides for the bias. (When ya refuse to find fault, always best to point the finger at both sides):
"In that sense, the outlets that exist for the explicit purpose of rooting out bias - liberal or conservative -- don't necessarily help so much. Certainly, biases exist, and sometimes they are reflected inappropriately. But if you're looking hard enough for bias one way or the other, you'll probably find it - maybe even both ways." (complete post)
Major news sources have just as much at stake here for the obvious reasons. With the like's of Mapes, Rather, CNN and Jordan, and now AP, how much of "historical facts" will need revision?
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Digital Camera World
I broke down and bought my own Christmas present that I have been meaning to purchase for over a year now. Yes, Rovin has entered the digital camera world. I wanted to start out with something easy to use in the lower price range with some "quality". While I'm sure that this will be replaced within a year for an upgrade, so far I am quite pleased with my choice.
I decided on a Cannon PowerShot A540 that I purchased at Target. $189.00 for the camera and $49.00 for the 1-gig memory chip. Total cost: $256.32 with tax; (no discounts or rebates)
The software and hardware allows me to take hundreds of pictures, plug into my front port of my PC, and instantly view them in a user friendly program.
While I'm sure there were probably other cameras out there that have comparable quality at the same price, so far I am pleased with the choice.Also, I became quite frustrated with attempting to purchase online. While the discounts were deeper by around $30 to $50, it did not seem like it was worth the wait in filling out rebate forms, shipping forms, and waiting perhap a full week for a $250 dollar purchase. Staples offered the same camera to me in an online email for $179 plus a free gig of memory, BUT every time I attempted to make this purchase, it would send me to a broken link or to another site with NO DEAL. (They will hear from me after the first of the year, when I have "petty" time)
Merry Christmas to All!
I Love My Coffee
My routine most mornings is getting up fairly early (3 to 4 am) and fixin' a pot of fresh ground coffee. I'll usually read and half dozen news sources and another half dozen blogs in the first hour. Last night I happened to check my email and was delighted to get this fowarded letter from my mother, who has recently turn eighty:
Kenny,
I thought you might enjoy this little forward story from a friend of mine in South Carolina.
Love, Mom
LIFE IS THE COFFEE
A group of alumni, highly established in their careers, got together to visit their old university professor. The conversation soon turned into complaints about stress in work and life.
Offering his guests coffee, the professor went to the kitchen and returned with a large pot of coffee and an assortment of cups - porcelain, plastic, glass, crystal, some plain-looking, some expensive, and some exquisite - telling them to help themselves to the coffee.
After all the students had a cup of coffee in hand, the professor said,: "If you noticed, all the nice looking expensive cups were taken up, leaving behind the plain and cheap ones. While it is but normal for you to want only the best for yourselves, that is the source of your problems and stress."
"Be assured that the cup itself adds no quality to the coffee. In most cases, it's just more expensive and in some cases even hides what we drink. What all of you really wanted was coffee, not the cup, but you consciously went for the best cups...and then began eyeing each other's cups."
"Consider this: Life is the coffee, and the jobs, houses, cars, things, money and position in society are the cups. They are just tools to hold and contain life, and the type of cup we have does not define nor change the quality of life we live. Sometimes, by concentrating only on the cup, we fail to enjoy the coffee God has provided us. He brews the coffee, not the cups ... enjoy your coffee.
Enjoy this day! (author unknown)
And this is another reason why I love my coffee........thanks Mom :)
Kenny,
I thought you might enjoy this little forward story from a friend of mine in South Carolina.
Love, Mom
LIFE IS THE COFFEE
A group of alumni, highly established in their careers, got together to visit their old university professor. The conversation soon turned into complaints about stress in work and life.
Offering his guests coffee, the professor went to the kitchen and returned with a large pot of coffee and an assortment of cups - porcelain, plastic, glass, crystal, some plain-looking, some expensive, and some exquisite - telling them to help themselves to the coffee.
After all the students had a cup of coffee in hand, the professor said,: "If you noticed, all the nice looking expensive cups were taken up, leaving behind the plain and cheap ones. While it is but normal for you to want only the best for yourselves, that is the source of your problems and stress."
"Be assured that the cup itself adds no quality to the coffee. In most cases, it's just more expensive and in some cases even hides what we drink. What all of you really wanted was coffee, not the cup, but you consciously went for the best cups...and then began eyeing each other's cups."
"Consider this: Life is the coffee, and the jobs, houses, cars, things, money and position in society are the cups. They are just tools to hold and contain life, and the type of cup we have does not define nor change the quality of life we live. Sometimes, by concentrating only on the cup, we fail to enjoy the coffee God has provided us. He brews the coffee, not the cups ... enjoy your coffee.
Enjoy this day! (author unknown)
And this is another reason why I love my coffee........thanks Mom :)
Monday, December 18, 2006
How Do You Classify a "Faithful"?
I can't begin to tell you how many times I saw a John Brodie to Ted Kwalick reception. Gene Washington dragging his toes through the back of the end zone for a go ahead score------only to watch a pathetic defense give the lead back a possession later. And yes, there was a time when I thought Nolan Sr. was the worst coach in the NFL.
Then came the 80's and Montana. I wore out my personal video repaying the "Catch". With an all-rookie defensive backfield of Hicks,Wright, and Lott starting in their first Superbowl in Detroit, the defense made just as many big plays as the offense did. I can still see Archie Reese lieing on his back on the pile (pumping both fist in the air), stopping the Bengals on a 1st and goal from the three yard line, in what has been billed as "one of the greatest goal line stands" in Superbowl history. Ray Wersching's Super Bowl record-tying 4 field goals didn't hurt with the final score 26-21.
Four Superbowls later, the Niners had dominated the league like no other team since Lombardi's Packers. (Bradshaw would be the first to argue that point, but he's still an ass.)
Oh, and Steve Young wasn't a slouch either, ( 24-of-36 passes for 325 yards and 6 touchdowns), over the San Diego Chargers as the 49ers won their fifth Super Bowl.
All of these teams were just that-------complete teams------offense, defense, special teams. Players from other teams would die to come play with the Niner organization (which was termed "a class organization" by John Madden) under Eddie D.
What ever the Niners do the rest of the year, it's been a success, and a bright silver lining, (or should I say gold), in what can be described as a "future franchise" commanding respect from their peers. ( I'm certain Mike Holmgren would grudgingly agree).
Playoffs? Niner fans will never again be completely satisfied until we reach the playoffs and win another Superbowl. We've never lost one.
Forty-Niner Faithful?-------- You bet I am!
The Rams would dominate us most of the time and when we finally got past them, the Cowboys would knock us off in the playoffs.
Then came the 80's and Montana. I wore out my personal video repaying the "Catch". With an all-rookie defensive backfield of Hicks,Wright, and Lott starting in their first Superbowl in Detroit, the defense made just as many big plays as the offense did. I can still see Archie Reese lieing on his back on the pile (pumping both fist in the air), stopping the Bengals on a 1st and goal from the three yard line, in what has been billed as "one of the greatest goal line stands" in Superbowl history. Ray Wersching's Super Bowl record-tying 4 field goals didn't hurt with the final score 26-21.
Four Superbowls later, the Niners had dominated the league like no other team since Lombardi's Packers. (Bradshaw would be the first to argue that point, but he's still an ass.)
Oh, and Steve Young wasn't a slouch either, ( 24-of-36 passes for 325 yards and 6 touchdowns), over the San Diego Chargers as the 49ers won their fifth Super Bowl.
All of these teams were just that-------complete teams------offense, defense, special teams. Players from other teams would die to come play with the Niner organization (which was termed "a class organization" by John Madden) under Eddie D.
What ever the Niners do the rest of the year, it's been a success, and a bright silver lining, (or should I say gold), in what can be described as a "future franchise" commanding respect from their peers. ( I'm certain Mike Holmgren would grudgingly agree).
Playoffs? Niner fans will never again be completely satisfied until we reach the playoffs and win another Superbowl. We've never lost one.
Forty-Niner Faithful?-------- You bet I am!
This Just Has to have the Left going Bonkers
Reid: Brief Troop Increase OK in Iraq
Dec 17, 4:01 PM (ET)
Incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid Says He Would Support Temporary Troop Surge in Iraq
By HOPE YEN (ABC NEWS)
WASHINGTON Dec 17, 2006 (AP)— The Senate's top Democrat offered qualified support Sunday for a plan to increase U.S. troops in Iraq, saying it would be acceptable as part of a broader strategy to bring combat forces home by 2008. This is going to have the radical left screaming for Reid's head on a platter.
From the KOS Kool-aid bunch:
"Geezuz, I'm quite sure it isn't Harry's intent, but why, for the love of God, do some Democrats keep giving The Dumbfuck in Chief cover for his disastrous decisions regarding Iraq? Gawd. Just shut the fuck up if you have no other ideas than to go along with this asshole."
"Exactly! Reid just blew it. What a bunch of bullshit - agreeing with Bush on ANYTHING to do with this war is agreeing with a liar that will screw you over in a second.How can Reid fall for this? And Markos is being a little naive by saying: Hopefully this is what Reid was proposing.Reid is not ambiguous. He is agreeing to escalate for as much as two years.What the fuck happened last month? Wasn't there an election that told these asses what we, the people wanted?"
"The Democrats Now Have the Power of the Purse. Bush cannot do this without the Democratic House and the Democratic Senate approving the funding for this. He simply cannot make this decision by himself. And the Democrats can, all by themselves, defund the war and bring this disaster to an end. After four years of whining about their powerlessness while offering plenty of aid and comfort to the Bush Administration, the Democrats now have the power to get us out of this war. But will they?"
(BY ALL MEANS, LETS JUST DE-FUND THE WAR AND SCREW THE TROOPS!)
Editor's note: I rarely post anything with the "F"-word, but the Kos-kids can't carry on a conversation with out it.
HUFF-PO SENSIBILITIES:
Over at the Huffington Post Lawrence O donnell writes a piece on how "Rush is Right":
"Rush Limbaugh is vexed by the Iraq Study Group. At first, Rush said the group's report was not a cut and run prescription. He now says, "This is cut and run, surrender without the words." And, now, Rush is right."
198 comments on this post and NOT ONE person mentioned the plight of the Iraqis--- the genocide many innocent Iraqi people will receive. Not one mention a possibility of a free and democratic country. Pathetic, Selfish Morons -----the whole lot of 'em.
Color Me Humble II
I was all ready to write a synopsis of how and why this nation has allowed it's greed for power (at any cost) to blind us of the threat that is upon us, when along comes Time Magazine proclaiming that I have been selected the "Person of the Year".
I must write to Time, (when I find the time), to thank them for their stroke of genius. Of course, the blogosphere will have to sit up and take note of how such a small contribution could have been recognized for such a distinction.
But to digress for a moment, what is the cause of a nation to become so self-serving, (and so filled with the lust for instant gratification), that we seem to justify turning our backs, (and closing our eyes), to the reality that the world has changed so quickly that the sovereignty of the freedom we had once cherished, (and nurtured), is but a whisper away from devastation.
(Could some one please tell me what part of "submit to the teachings of Islam as translated by the Prophet Mohammad or die" we don't understand?)
When God chose Moses to free "His" people from bondage in (1639 BC?) he also gave Moses his commandments to follow so that the lives of his people would be structured. Those commandments were filled with the laws that have guided mankind through the centuries and is still the basis for the morality of a civil and just society. In return for obeying His laws, God promised the one thing that no man can give, eternal life. (He also "asked" that we love Him as we would also love ourselves). I would call this the "ultimate freedom of choice."
To worship idols or worldly possessions was a sin in His eyes, and yet God allowed us to share in the fruits of our labor.
And so we could be absolved of our past sins, He sent His only son to die on the cross and with that death take on the sins of the world. We celebrate the birth of this man, that died for all of us, on the 25th of December.
The 21st century version of a distorted and twisted religion of Islam offers no such choice in their faith. We either submit or die.
So, if the distinction of "Person of the Year" has been bestowed on me, I defer my title to God, who still allows me to stroke this keyboard with out persecution or sacrifice.
Friday, December 15, 2006
McCain's Report on Iraq
John McCain and five other senators were in Iraq recently and now claims that the military only needs fifteen to thirty thousand more troops to help in stabilizing a fragile Iraqi government.
According to this Washington Times report (via AP), McCain, along with Senators Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham agreed with McCain's sentiment:
BAGHDAD (AP)[*] -- The issue of U.S. troop levels echoed from Baghdad to Washington yesterday, with Sen. John McCain calling for the deployment of 15,000 to 30,000 more troops to Iraq, and the Army's top general warning that his force "will break" without thousands more active-duty soldiers and greater use of the reserves. Mr. McCain, who was visiting Baghdad with five other senators, said he realizes that few Americans favor deploying more U.S. troops to Iraq and that if such a move proved unsuccessful, it could hurt his presidential ambitions. But he said that if U.S. troops leave Iraq in chaos, groups such as al Qaeda "will follow us home and that we will have a large conflict and greater challenges than those that we now face here in Iraq."
"The American people are confused, they're frustrated, they're disappointed by the Iraq war, but they also want us to succeed if there's any way to do that," the Arizona Republican told reporters in Baghdad.
Mr. McCain said conditions in some areas of Iraq have improved since his visit in March, but "I believe there is still a compelling reason to have an increase in troops here in Baghdad and in Anbar province in order to bring the sectarian violence under control" and to "allow the political process to proceed." Two other senators in the delegation, Joe Lieberman, Connecticut Democrat, and Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, agreed.[**] "We need more, not less, U.S. troops here," said Mr. Lieberman, who won his re-election bid last month as an independent.
So.........now Senator McCain believes 15 to30 thousand more troops is all that's necessary to attempt to put an end to the major violence in Iraq and allow the Iraqi government to proceed in a direction of civility. What exactly transpired between last March and December when the number of troops called for was 50,000?
Let's see, wasn't that the period when, (according to our MSM), sectarian violence had ramped up to the point of civil war? Afghanistan was on the brink of being overtaken again by the Taliban? Chaos was so abound in the entire region that the folks back home (the left's media agenda) were calling for a "change in direction".
I still don't get it!.......???????
If we needed 50k troops last march, and the situation on the ground got nothing but worse up to the November elections, how is it we only need 15k to 30k now? Did McCain get bad Intel last March? Did AP and our mystery man Jamil Hussein, (with help from the insurgency), ramp up the propaganda machine just in time to effect the elections here at home?
Why is it that since the elections in November, the major newspapers reporting of the "debacle" in the middle east has reduced in volume by around 50%?
Mr. McCain, if last March we needed 50k more troops, (and things got nothing but worse), how is it we only need 15 thousand now?
While most of a young new government is functioning through-out Iraq, and reconstruction is progressing, only three provinces (although major ones), are in disarray because of the power struggle within the factions of Shia and Sunni. The Kurds in the north are settled in and thriving. Most of southern Iraq is stabilized with a few skirmishes from time to time.
It would seem to this "blogger" that with the militay might of 140,000 well trained and seasoned troops, (and the fact that we took down this nation in three weeks), there should be little trouble with taking down the Anbar province and Bagdad. And dictating to the sectarian leaders their days are numbered for getting their act together.
[*] = For obvious reasons, I would suggest that the Washington Times scrutinize all releases provided by AP.
According to this Washington Times report (via AP), McCain, along with Senators Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham agreed with McCain's sentiment:
BAGHDAD (AP)[*] -- The issue of U.S. troop levels echoed from Baghdad to Washington yesterday, with Sen. John McCain calling for the deployment of 15,000 to 30,000 more troops to Iraq, and the Army's top general warning that his force "will break" without thousands more active-duty soldiers and greater use of the reserves. Mr. McCain, who was visiting Baghdad with five other senators, said he realizes that few Americans favor deploying more U.S. troops to Iraq and that if such a move proved unsuccessful, it could hurt his presidential ambitions. But he said that if U.S. troops leave Iraq in chaos, groups such as al Qaeda "will follow us home and that we will have a large conflict and greater challenges than those that we now face here in Iraq."
"The American people are confused, they're frustrated, they're disappointed by the Iraq war, but they also want us to succeed if there's any way to do that," the Arizona Republican told reporters in Baghdad.
Mr. McCain said conditions in some areas of Iraq have improved since his visit in March, but "I believe there is still a compelling reason to have an increase in troops here in Baghdad and in Anbar province in order to bring the sectarian violence under control" and to "allow the political process to proceed." Two other senators in the delegation, Joe Lieberman, Connecticut Democrat, and Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, agreed.[**] "We need more, not less, U.S. troops here," said Mr. Lieberman, who won his re-election bid last month as an independent.
So.........now Senator McCain believes 15 to30 thousand more troops is all that's necessary to attempt to put an end to the major violence in Iraq and allow the Iraqi government to proceed in a direction of civility. What exactly transpired between last March and December when the number of troops called for was 50,000?
Let's see, wasn't that the period when, (according to our MSM), sectarian violence had ramped up to the point of civil war? Afghanistan was on the brink of being overtaken again by the Taliban? Chaos was so abound in the entire region that the folks back home (the left's media agenda) were calling for a "change in direction".
I still don't get it!.......???????
If we needed 50k troops last march, and the situation on the ground got nothing but worse up to the November elections, how is it we only need 15k to 30k now? Did McCain get bad Intel last March? Did AP and our mystery man Jamil Hussein, (with help from the insurgency), ramp up the propaganda machine just in time to effect the elections here at home?
Why is it that since the elections in November, the major newspapers reporting of the "debacle" in the middle east has reduced in volume by around 50%?
Mr. McCain, if last March we needed 50k more troops, (and things got nothing but worse), how is it we only need 15 thousand now?
While most of a young new government is functioning through-out Iraq, and reconstruction is progressing, only three provinces (although major ones), are in disarray because of the power struggle within the factions of Shia and Sunni. The Kurds in the north are settled in and thriving. Most of southern Iraq is stabilized with a few skirmishes from time to time.
It would seem to this "blogger" that with the militay might of 140,000 well trained and seasoned troops, (and the fact that we took down this nation in three weeks), there should be little trouble with taking down the Anbar province and Bagdad. And dictating to the sectarian leaders their days are numbered for getting their act together.
[*] = For obvious reasons, I would suggest that the Washington Times scrutinize all releases provided by AP.
[**] = Neither AP or the Washington Times reported what the other three senators had to say) ?
Editors note: somewhere I got a ten to fifteen number which was supposed to be 15 to 30. (It was the Army that said only ten to fifteen could be deployed) The proper numbers have been edited, but if McCain still insist "things" have gotten better in Iraq since last march, he is still contradicting the MSM.
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Media Coup Brewing in Iraq
The infamous Eason Jordan, who resigned from CNN in Feb. 05 has submerged in Iraq with a new blogsite, and may be attempting to move in on a weakened and suspect AP. AP is having serious credibility problems after their published story of "Six Sunnis Burned Alive". Jordan may have seen this dent in AP's armor ,(fabrications), and may see this as a prime opportunity to insert himself back into the mix, (journalism school of propaganda). Hell, if AP can get away with lies and distortions, why cant Jordan? After all, Jordan wrote the manual on it, (didnt he)?
Michelle Malkin has a full update on the "Rise" of Eason Jordan (including an invitation to join Jordan in Iraq for the search for Jamil Hussein, the main source for AP's rag reporting for the past few years.)
Curt at Flopping Aces has a new follow-up and insist AP is digging another hole.
Michelle Malkin has a full update on the "Rise" of Eason Jordan (including an invitation to join Jordan in Iraq for the search for Jamil Hussein, the main source for AP's rag reporting for the past few years.)
Curt at Flopping Aces has a new follow-up and insist AP is digging another hole.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Deputizing Bloggers
Our presidential hopeful, Sen. John McCain is drafting legislation (again) that may have bloggers involved in policing the internet: (h/t Brian at Iowa Voice)
Senator: Illegal images must be reported
update: John McCain proposes law to force Web sites to report unlawful activity and delete posts by sex offenders.
By Declan McCullagh Staff Writer, CNET News.com
Published: December 8, 2006
update: Millions of commercial Web sites and personal blogs would be required to report illegal images or videos posted by their users or pay fines of up to $300,000, if a new proposal in the U.S. Senate came into law. The legislation, drafted by Sen. John McCain and obtained by CNET News.com, would also require Web sites that offer user profiles to delete pages posted by sex offenders.In a speech on the Senate floor Wednesday, the Arizona Republican and former presidential candidate warned that "technology has contributed to the greater distribution and availability, and, some believe, desire for child pornography." McCain scored 31 of 100 points on a News.com 2006 election guide scoring technology-related votes. (link)
Now, I need all who read this to understand where I stand on pedophiles and child pornography; the scumbags involved in this need to be locked up and the key thrown away. A civil society needs to purge these perverts from existence.......
........But the unintended threat of prosecution for not reporting some site that a blogger may have linked to (or visited) may be going a bit too far.If Mr. McCain wants to deputize me and pay me for policing the Internet, he may want to inquire if I already have a full time job. There is a slippery slope here, and we can all hope that our representatives craft the proper legislation that will not require the average blogger to police the web for fear that something missed will land them in jail or fined.
While John McCain's intentions may be honorable, (as most of us are), I would hope that he will consider our points in this proposal.
others blogging:
Common Sense Political Thought
Senator: Illegal images must be reported
update: John McCain proposes law to force Web sites to report unlawful activity and delete posts by sex offenders.
By Declan McCullagh Staff Writer, CNET News.com
Published: December 8, 2006
update: Millions of commercial Web sites and personal blogs would be required to report illegal images or videos posted by their users or pay fines of up to $300,000, if a new proposal in the U.S. Senate came into law. The legislation, drafted by Sen. John McCain and obtained by CNET News.com, would also require Web sites that offer user profiles to delete pages posted by sex offenders.In a speech on the Senate floor Wednesday, the Arizona Republican and former presidential candidate warned that "technology has contributed to the greater distribution and availability, and, some believe, desire for child pornography." McCain scored 31 of 100 points on a News.com 2006 election guide scoring technology-related votes. (link)
Now, I need all who read this to understand where I stand on pedophiles and child pornography; the scumbags involved in this need to be locked up and the key thrown away. A civil society needs to purge these perverts from existence.......
........But the unintended threat of prosecution for not reporting some site that a blogger may have linked to (or visited) may be going a bit too far.If Mr. McCain wants to deputize me and pay me for policing the Internet, he may want to inquire if I already have a full time job. There is a slippery slope here, and we can all hope that our representatives craft the proper legislation that will not require the average blogger to police the web for fear that something missed will land them in jail or fined.
While John McCain's intentions may be honorable, (as most of us are), I would hope that he will consider our points in this proposal.
others blogging:
Common Sense Political Thought
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Monday, December 11, 2006
Why is Print News Media Down?
From a recent New York Times article:
Not Boasting, Even Though He Could
By DAVID CARR
Last Wednesday afternoon, Donald E. Graham, the chief executive of the Washington Post Company, arrived in Manhattan for the Credit Suisse media week for analysts and told them, well, not much.
“For those of you who are seeing us for the first time, the shareholder audience and those of you who might become shareholders is who we are talking to,” he said, beginning with a friendly brush-back to Wall Street analysts that has become something of a tradition over the years. “We don’t do quarters; we don’t do forecasts,” he said.
The Washington Post newspaper is hurting, with advertising sales down 11 percent in the third quarter and circulation off 3.3 percent in the six months ended in September. Newsroom layoffs of an unspecified number are in the offing.Mr. Graham said Wednesday that “2006 has been a poor year for every newspaper that I know of,” pointing out later that “during the summer,
things changed drastically.
“Our print advertising revenues in the last four months have been poor, considerably poorer than I would have expected,” he said.If he has any quick fixes, he didn’t share them. Beyond talking about the growth in the company’s Web sites and a cheesy- sounding buyer loyalty program called Postpoints, there was no grand plan. And Mr. Graham plainly said he did not know how it would all end. Katharine Graham assured the newspaper’s journalistic legacy by hiring the best and ferociously backing them. Her son is staring down a far more chronic challenge and solving it not with journalism, but with financial engineering. There won’t be any movies made about that, but if you care about good journalism, it may be just as important.
You have to hand it to them (Media Folk), they sure spin a quality yarn.
While print media is down again for the third straight year, some executives can still paint the picture rosy. While blaming web traffic for a portion of the losses, (which could be argued), these media elites still refuse to consider their content, or lack of it. The fact that 90% of the print media is left leaning and biased against conservative thought never seems to cross their minds.
And now they have this new problem that has yet to been dealt with; their main supplier of the bulk of their content has come into question of the validity of their content. (Eason Jordan revisited)
In short------Associated Press (AP) has been exposed to some serious allegations of creating content for the soul purpose of setting the shape of world views. Links here and here.
As of this post, AP has refused to retract or positively confirm that "Six Sunnis were burned Alive" last month in Iraq, while many in the blogosphere, and finally some in national publications are questioning if the story was not a total fabrication. (AP lied---publications died)
Now the world believes that six sunnis were burned alive with the content provided by a single source (Capt Jamal Hussein) who has yet to have been produced and is not who AP says he is. And 99% of our nations print media published this story to their readership implying that it was the truth and without a doubt.
While the baptism of AP does not seem to be forthcoming, the credibility of a world-wide news source may be deminished right before the elite media's eyes. This may be described as "Rather-gate to the tenth power". And advertisers and stockholders may want to look at diversifying their portfolios.
Not Boasting, Even Though He Could
By DAVID CARR
Last Wednesday afternoon, Donald E. Graham, the chief executive of the Washington Post Company, arrived in Manhattan for the Credit Suisse media week for analysts and told them, well, not much.
“For those of you who are seeing us for the first time, the shareholder audience and those of you who might become shareholders is who we are talking to,” he said, beginning with a friendly brush-back to Wall Street analysts that has become something of a tradition over the years. “We don’t do quarters; we don’t do forecasts,” he said.
The Washington Post newspaper is hurting, with advertising sales down 11 percent in the third quarter and circulation off 3.3 percent in the six months ended in September. Newsroom layoffs of an unspecified number are in the offing.Mr. Graham said Wednesday that “2006 has been a poor year for every newspaper that I know of,” pointing out later that “during the summer,
things changed drastically.
“Our print advertising revenues in the last four months have been poor, considerably poorer than I would have expected,” he said.If he has any quick fixes, he didn’t share them. Beyond talking about the growth in the company’s Web sites and a cheesy- sounding buyer loyalty program called Postpoints, there was no grand plan. And Mr. Graham plainly said he did not know how it would all end. Katharine Graham assured the newspaper’s journalistic legacy by hiring the best and ferociously backing them. Her son is staring down a far more chronic challenge and solving it not with journalism, but with financial engineering. There won’t be any movies made about that, but if you care about good journalism, it may be just as important.
You have to hand it to them (Media Folk), they sure spin a quality yarn.
While print media is down again for the third straight year, some executives can still paint the picture rosy. While blaming web traffic for a portion of the losses, (which could be argued), these media elites still refuse to consider their content, or lack of it. The fact that 90% of the print media is left leaning and biased against conservative thought never seems to cross their minds.
And now they have this new problem that has yet to been dealt with; their main supplier of the bulk of their content has come into question of the validity of their content. (Eason Jordan revisited)
In short------Associated Press (AP) has been exposed to some serious allegations of creating content for the soul purpose of setting the shape of world views. Links here and here.
As of this post, AP has refused to retract or positively confirm that "Six Sunnis were burned Alive" last month in Iraq, while many in the blogosphere, and finally some in national publications are questioning if the story was not a total fabrication. (AP lied---publications died)
Now the world believes that six sunnis were burned alive with the content provided by a single source (Capt Jamal Hussein) who has yet to have been produced and is not who AP says he is. And 99% of our nations print media published this story to their readership implying that it was the truth and without a doubt.
While the baptism of AP does not seem to be forthcoming, the credibility of a world-wide news source may be deminished right before the elite media's eyes. This may be described as "Rather-gate to the tenth power". And advertisers and stockholders may want to look at diversifying their portfolios.
Saturday, December 09, 2006
Paging Jamil Hussein
The continued flack over the AP story of "Six Sunnis Burned Alive" is bringing up some serious questions about how long has AP been supplying the world with biased and unsourced information:
Michelle Malkin continues to ask AP and others who rely on AP as their single source for the War in Iraq. "Who is Jamil Hussein?"
From Confederate Yankee:
"This developing Associated Press implosion may go back as far as two years, affecting as many as 60 stories from just this one allegedly fake policeman alone. And Jamil Hussein is just one of more than a dozen potentially fake Iraqi policemen used in news reports the AP disseminates around the world. This does not begin to attempt to account for non-offical sources which the AP will have an even harder time substantiating. Quite literally, almost all AP reporting from Iraq not verified from reporters of other news organizations is now suspect, and with good reason. Instead of affecting one show on one network watched by 14 million viewers as Rathergate did, "Jamilgate" means the Associated Press may have been delivering news of questionable accuracy to one billion people a day for two years or more.
In this evolving instance of faux journalism, "60 Minutes" is now potentially 60 billion false impressions, or more.
A principled, professional news organization owes its consumers the truth. To date, the Associated Press, as voiced by comments from officers international editor John Daniszewski and executive editor Kathleen Carroll, has refused to address the rampant inconsistencies in the "burning men" story, produce physical evidence proving their allegations, or produce star source Iraqi Police Captain Jamil Hussein. Arrogantly, they attack the messenger (both U.S military and Iraqi government sources and bloggers), and insist we must believe them, even though they give us no compelling reason to do so, and many reasons to doubt them.'
Commenter Tully from CY:
"In the face of fresh criticism from the New York Post, AP has responded again, huffing and puffing at anyone who would dare question their probity.
It adds up to the same thing as before, with extra vituperation: "How dare you question us, you pajamahadin? We've sent Top Men in to confirm the story! It's a dangerous area, and we're the only ones who've gone there! No one who's gone there questions the story!" (That latter claim, BTW, is completely false.)
What the AP response doesn't do: Produce Jamil Hussein. Provide a single verifiable source for the story. Address the fact that other components of the story have been shown to be completely false (no four mosques involved). Name ANY of the "journalists" whom AP claims later confirmed the story. Provide ANY evidence at all that the alleged incident ever occured, other than additional unnamed and anonymous sources to bolster the Incredible Invisible Jamil Hussein.
Amount of evidence provided by AP to date: Their unsupported word, an invisible and unfindable police captain who cannot even be shown to exist, and a large raft of snotty ad hominem for anyone who questions it. That's it."
NRO has posted a story that relates to all of this Mainsream Media Bias:
A New Media Bias Study:
Two University of Chicago researchers have come out with a new study that connects the media bias of a newspaper to the political leanings of the people who buy it. It's behind a subscription wall, but the New York Times, CBS Public Eye and Slate's Jack Shafer all have interesting takes. Let's look at two beneficial findings of this study: (complete story)
UPDATE: Curt at Flopping Aces (who broke this AP "story" / "fabrication")has a new roundup and updates here and here.
UDATE II: Hot Air has a stinging vidio from Mark Steyn and a new recap here
(Editor's comment to be posted here soon)
Previous:
ASSOCIATED PRESS, MSM CAUGHT WITH LIES
SIX SUNNIS BURNIN'.............
AP vs Centcom
Media Bias in Todays National and World Affairs
Michelle Malkin continues to ask AP and others who rely on AP as their single source for the War in Iraq. "Who is Jamil Hussein?"
From Confederate Yankee:
"This developing Associated Press implosion may go back as far as two years, affecting as many as 60 stories from just this one allegedly fake policeman alone. And Jamil Hussein is just one of more than a dozen potentially fake Iraqi policemen used in news reports the AP disseminates around the world. This does not begin to attempt to account for non-offical sources which the AP will have an even harder time substantiating. Quite literally, almost all AP reporting from Iraq not verified from reporters of other news organizations is now suspect, and with good reason. Instead of affecting one show on one network watched by 14 million viewers as Rathergate did, "Jamilgate" means the Associated Press may have been delivering news of questionable accuracy to one billion people a day for two years or more.
In this evolving instance of faux journalism, "60 Minutes" is now potentially 60 billion false impressions, or more.
A principled, professional news organization owes its consumers the truth. To date, the Associated Press, as voiced by comments from officers international editor John Daniszewski and executive editor Kathleen Carroll, has refused to address the rampant inconsistencies in the "burning men" story, produce physical evidence proving their allegations, or produce star source Iraqi Police Captain Jamil Hussein. Arrogantly, they attack the messenger (both U.S military and Iraqi government sources and bloggers), and insist we must believe them, even though they give us no compelling reason to do so, and many reasons to doubt them.'
Commenter Tully from CY:
"In the face of fresh criticism from the New York Post, AP has responded again, huffing and puffing at anyone who would dare question their probity.
It adds up to the same thing as before, with extra vituperation: "How dare you question us, you pajamahadin? We've sent Top Men in to confirm the story! It's a dangerous area, and we're the only ones who've gone there! No one who's gone there questions the story!" (That latter claim, BTW, is completely false.)
What the AP response doesn't do: Produce Jamil Hussein. Provide a single verifiable source for the story. Address the fact that other components of the story have been shown to be completely false (no four mosques involved). Name ANY of the "journalists" whom AP claims later confirmed the story. Provide ANY evidence at all that the alleged incident ever occured, other than additional unnamed and anonymous sources to bolster the Incredible Invisible Jamil Hussein.
Amount of evidence provided by AP to date: Their unsupported word, an invisible and unfindable police captain who cannot even be shown to exist, and a large raft of snotty ad hominem for anyone who questions it. That's it."
NRO has posted a story that relates to all of this Mainsream Media Bias:
A New Media Bias Study:
Two University of Chicago researchers have come out with a new study that connects the media bias of a newspaper to the political leanings of the people who buy it. It's behind a subscription wall, but the New York Times, CBS Public Eye and Slate's Jack Shafer all have interesting takes. Let's look at two beneficial findings of this study: (complete story)
UPDATE: Curt at Flopping Aces (who broke this AP "story" / "fabrication")has a new roundup and updates here and here.
UDATE II: Hot Air has a stinging vidio from Mark Steyn and a new recap here
(Editor's comment to be posted here soon)
Previous:
ASSOCIATED PRESS, MSM CAUGHT WITH LIES
SIX SUNNIS BURNIN'.............
AP vs Centcom
Media Bias in Todays National and World Affairs
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
2006 Weblog Finalist are Up
Once again, the finalist were announced for the 2006 Weblog Awards and RovinsWorld has been left out, (again). I will have to fire that PR man, and immediately announce my candidacy for 2007, and my exploratory committee for 2008. It's too early for committing to 2009. I may wait a week for that announcement.
My good friend Dana at Common Sense Political Thought doesn't appear to have made the finalist list either, but I think Dana waited too long to spend his campaign capital. CSPT only last week hit it's first "nerve" and spiked in traffic.
New Category Created: Best Northern California Conservative Christian Blog with under 365 post per year. Hey, RovinsWorld made the finalist list! -:)
Voting starts tomorrow, (Dec 7th), so get out and vote early and often.
My good friend Dana at Common Sense Political Thought doesn't appear to have made the finalist list either, but I think Dana waited too long to spend his campaign capital. CSPT only last week hit it's first "nerve" and spiked in traffic.
New Category Created: Best Northern California Conservative Christian Blog with under 365 post per year. Hey, RovinsWorld made the finalist list! -:)
Voting starts tomorrow, (Dec 7th), so get out and vote early and often.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Worst President Ever?
Bush haters-------Take note:
From Powerline:
Yesterday, I commented on the assessment of the respected (at least at one time) radical-leftist historian Eric Foner that George W. Bush is undoubtedly the worst president in American history. Foner was so anxious to "mail in" that assessment that he neglected to mention the one issue that, depending on future developments, actually could cause objective historians to give President Bush low marks -- the war in Iraq. But let's compare Bush to some other post-World War II presidents when it comes to waging, or not waging, war.
Harry Truman
In early 1950, the Secretary of State fails to include South Korea in his statement of what comprises America's Pacific defense rim. A few months later, Joseph Stalin, who had vetoed a North Korean invasion of South Korea earlier, gives North Korea the go-ahead. The North Koreans invade. The U.S. is surprised and unprepared. Indeed, the Secretary of State had recently told Congress that no such invasion would likely occur. The North Korean invaders rout the South Koreans and capture Seoul. U.S. forces intervene and eventually turn the tide, creating the prospect that North Korea can successfully be invaded. The president believes that China won't enter the war, but China does enter, forcing U.S. troops to retreat. The commander of our forces in Korea (a legendary general) wants to use nuclear weapons against the Chinese, but the president refuses and removes the commander. A long stalemate ensues. Domestic support for the war evaporates and a new president makes the peace. North Korea remains intact and now has nuclear weapons making it, nearly everyone agrees, a serious threat to the security of the region and of the U.S. In three years of combat, approximately 40,000 Americans are killed.
John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon
Not long after his botched invasion of Cuba, a young president begins a substantial U.S. involvement in South Vietnam in order to save a friendly government from being overthrown by communists. His successor escalates the war substantially, and that president's successor continues to wage war for more than five additional years. By the time it is over, approximately 60,000 Americans have been killed and South Vietnam has fallen to the communists.
Jimmy Carter
Iran, a staunch ally of the U.S., faces revolutionary pressure, the most vigorous of which is exerted by Islamic fanatics. The Shah of Iran looks to his long-time friend, the U.S., for support. The president shows nothing but comtempt and appears indifferent at best to the Shah's survival. The government, totally demoralized, loses its will to remain in power. The Shah falls and, predictably, the Islamic fanatics end up in control. The new regime takes U.S. embassy personnel as hostages. Now it is the U.S. president who is demoralized and lacking will. Eventually, he orders an absurd rescue plan that fails utterly, bringing even further humiliation on our country. Almost 30 years later, the Islamic fanatics remain in control. They sponsor terrorists and deadly anti-western militias throughout the Middle East. They apparently are close to developing nuclear weapons.
Bill Clinton
Yet another group of anti-western Islamic fanatics is training thousands of terrorists in Afghanistan, and we know it. Terrorists launch a series of strikes against the U.S. -- the World Trade Center, Khobar Towers, U.S. embassies in Africa, the U.S.S. Cole. The terrorists training in Afghanistan are behind most if not all of these attacks. The president does essentially nothing in response. Offered several opportunities to take out the leader of the terrorist group, he
declines. Later he will blame his inaction on various U.S. agencies under his control, and on the fact that taking action would have engendered criticism, since he had evaded the draft. Soon after the president leaves office, the Afghan based terrorists launch an attack on U.S. soil that kills approximately 3,000 American.
George W. Bush
Following the deadly attack against the U.S., the new president quickly brings down the regime in Afghanistan that allowed the terrorists to flourish, and routs the terrorist group there. Next, he turns to the regime in Iraq. That regime has been sponsoring terrorism for years and has engaged in the mass murder of its own citizens. It has invaded two of its neighbors, one of which
is a U.S. ally. Our intelligence community believes with near unanimity that the regime possesses weapons of mass destruction. It also believes that it is capable of developing nuclear weapons in short order. The president, strongly supported by Congress, orders an invasion. It proves to be one of the most successful military operations in our history. After toppling the regime and quickly rounding up many of its leaders, the president declares that the mission is accomplished and that major combat operations have ended. He is wrong. An insurgency develops. Although the U.S. enables the Iraqis to hold unprecedented democratic elections, enact a constitution, and elect a government of their choosing, the U.S. has not been able to quell the violence caused by the insurgency and by sectarian conflicts. So far approximately 3,000 Americans have been killed. The deaths continue at a rate of about 50 to 100 per month.
* * * * *
The fate of Iraq has not been settled and the broader consequences of our action there are not yet clear. But based on what we know now, it's difficult to argue that events in Iraq prove President Bush to be, comparatively speaking, even a bad modern-day president, much less our worst president ever.
Editors note: Rovinsworld copied this verbatum from Powerline without permission. (I could not chop this one up) I do have a request in for permission and will delete it, if not granted.
"The next time you feel doubts about the direction of this country, remember this:
The only two defining forces that have ever been willing to die for you are: (1) Jesus Christ and (2) the American soldier! One died for your soul and the other for your freedom -- even to read this!" (link)
Local News: (kind-of)
Rescue efforts Monday shifted back to the Bear Camp area in Josephine County after information surfaced that a cellular tower received a signal from one of the family's phones. Authorities credit an employee of Oregon cell provider Edge Wireless with creating computer models to triangulate the phone's location. (link)
Way to Go Edge Wireless! That's my carrier.
From Powerline:
Yesterday, I commented on the assessment of the respected (at least at one time) radical-leftist historian Eric Foner that George W. Bush is undoubtedly the worst president in American history. Foner was so anxious to "mail in" that assessment that he neglected to mention the one issue that, depending on future developments, actually could cause objective historians to give President Bush low marks -- the war in Iraq. But let's compare Bush to some other post-World War II presidents when it comes to waging, or not waging, war.
Harry Truman
In early 1950, the Secretary of State fails to include South Korea in his statement of what comprises America's Pacific defense rim. A few months later, Joseph Stalin, who had vetoed a North Korean invasion of South Korea earlier, gives North Korea the go-ahead. The North Koreans invade. The U.S. is surprised and unprepared. Indeed, the Secretary of State had recently told Congress that no such invasion would likely occur. The North Korean invaders rout the South Koreans and capture Seoul. U.S. forces intervene and eventually turn the tide, creating the prospect that North Korea can successfully be invaded. The president believes that China won't enter the war, but China does enter, forcing U.S. troops to retreat. The commander of our forces in Korea (a legendary general) wants to use nuclear weapons against the Chinese, but the president refuses and removes the commander. A long stalemate ensues. Domestic support for the war evaporates and a new president makes the peace. North Korea remains intact and now has nuclear weapons making it, nearly everyone agrees, a serious threat to the security of the region and of the U.S. In three years of combat, approximately 40,000 Americans are killed.
John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon
Not long after his botched invasion of Cuba, a young president begins a substantial U.S. involvement in South Vietnam in order to save a friendly government from being overthrown by communists. His successor escalates the war substantially, and that president's successor continues to wage war for more than five additional years. By the time it is over, approximately 60,000 Americans have been killed and South Vietnam has fallen to the communists.
Jimmy Carter
Iran, a staunch ally of the U.S., faces revolutionary pressure, the most vigorous of which is exerted by Islamic fanatics. The Shah of Iran looks to his long-time friend, the U.S., for support. The president shows nothing but comtempt and appears indifferent at best to the Shah's survival. The government, totally demoralized, loses its will to remain in power. The Shah falls and, predictably, the Islamic fanatics end up in control. The new regime takes U.S. embassy personnel as hostages. Now it is the U.S. president who is demoralized and lacking will. Eventually, he orders an absurd rescue plan that fails utterly, bringing even further humiliation on our country. Almost 30 years later, the Islamic fanatics remain in control. They sponsor terrorists and deadly anti-western militias throughout the Middle East. They apparently are close to developing nuclear weapons.
Bill Clinton
Yet another group of anti-western Islamic fanatics is training thousands of terrorists in Afghanistan, and we know it. Terrorists launch a series of strikes against the U.S. -- the World Trade Center, Khobar Towers, U.S. embassies in Africa, the U.S.S. Cole. The terrorists training in Afghanistan are behind most if not all of these attacks. The president does essentially nothing in response. Offered several opportunities to take out the leader of the terrorist group, he
declines. Later he will blame his inaction on various U.S. agencies under his control, and on the fact that taking action would have engendered criticism, since he had evaded the draft. Soon after the president leaves office, the Afghan based terrorists launch an attack on U.S. soil that kills approximately 3,000 American.
George W. Bush
Following the deadly attack against the U.S., the new president quickly brings down the regime in Afghanistan that allowed the terrorists to flourish, and routs the terrorist group there. Next, he turns to the regime in Iraq. That regime has been sponsoring terrorism for years and has engaged in the mass murder of its own citizens. It has invaded two of its neighbors, one of which
is a U.S. ally. Our intelligence community believes with near unanimity that the regime possesses weapons of mass destruction. It also believes that it is capable of developing nuclear weapons in short order. The president, strongly supported by Congress, orders an invasion. It proves to be one of the most successful military operations in our history. After toppling the regime and quickly rounding up many of its leaders, the president declares that the mission is accomplished and that major combat operations have ended. He is wrong. An insurgency develops. Although the U.S. enables the Iraqis to hold unprecedented democratic elections, enact a constitution, and elect a government of their choosing, the U.S. has not been able to quell the violence caused by the insurgency and by sectarian conflicts. So far approximately 3,000 Americans have been killed. The deaths continue at a rate of about 50 to 100 per month.
* * * * *
The fate of Iraq has not been settled and the broader consequences of our action there are not yet clear. But based on what we know now, it's difficult to argue that events in Iraq prove President Bush to be, comparatively speaking, even a bad modern-day president, much less our worst president ever.
Editors note: Rovinsworld copied this verbatum from Powerline without permission. (I could not chop this one up) I do have a request in for permission and will delete it, if not granted.
"The next time you feel doubts about the direction of this country, remember this:
The only two defining forces that have ever been willing to die for you are: (1) Jesus Christ and (2) the American soldier! One died for your soul and the other for your freedom -- even to read this!" (link)
Local News: (kind-of)
Rescue efforts Monday shifted back to the Bear Camp area in Josephine County after information surfaced that a cellular tower received a signal from one of the family's phones. Authorities credit an employee of Oregon cell provider Edge Wireless with creating computer models to triangulate the phone's location. (link)
Way to Go Edge Wireless! That's my carrier.
Monday, December 04, 2006
The " L I T T L E " Things
My friend Gloria Daniels from NC reminded me of what is important in many lives:
(I second the motion..........motion passed.)
As you might know, the head of a company survived 9/11 because his son started kindergarten.
Another fellow was alive because it was his turn to bring donuts.
One woman was late because her alarm clock didn't go off in time.
One was late because of being stuck on the NJ Turnpike because of an auto accident.
One of them missed his bus.
One spilled food on her clothes and had to take time to change.
One's car wouldn't start.
One went back to answer the telephone .
One had a child that dawdled and didn't get ready as soon as he should have.
One couldn't get a taxi.
The one that struck me was the man who put on a new pair of shoes that morning, took the various means to get to work but before he got there, he developed a blister on his foot. He stopped at a drugstore to buy a Band-Aid. That is why he is alive today.
Now when I am stuck in traffic, miss an elevator, turn back to answer a ringing telephone .. all the little things that annoy me..... I think to myself, this is exactly where God wants me to be at this very moment..
Thanks sweetie, I needed that :)
(I second the motion..........motion passed.)
As you might know, the head of a company survived 9/11 because his son started kindergarten.
Another fellow was alive because it was his turn to bring donuts.
One woman was late because her alarm clock didn't go off in time.
One was late because of being stuck on the NJ Turnpike because of an auto accident.
One of them missed his bus.
One spilled food on her clothes and had to take time to change.
One's car wouldn't start.
One went back to answer the telephone .
One had a child that dawdled and didn't get ready as soon as he should have.
One couldn't get a taxi.
The one that struck me was the man who put on a new pair of shoes that morning, took the various means to get to work but before he got there, he developed a blister on his foot. He stopped at a drugstore to buy a Band-Aid. That is why he is alive today.
Now when I am stuck in traffic, miss an elevator, turn back to answer a ringing telephone .. all the little things that annoy me..... I think to myself, this is exactly where God wants me to be at this very moment..
Thanks sweetie, I needed that :)
Let the Games Begin
The college bowl games are finally set. Not everyone's happy (especially Michigan) but it looks like there will be some good games to watch over the holiday season.
Gators Will Face Buckeyes for BCS TitleFlorida beat Michigan on Sunday in the only game that mattered. The Gators, who lobbied hard for this victory, were picked to play No. 1 Ohio State for college football's national championship, ending any chance for the Wolverines to get the rematch they so desired and thought they deserved. But Florida got in by a whisker _ just a hundredth of a point in the Bowl Championship Series standings.
The Gators had a BCS average of .944, and the Wolverines were just behind at .934. The teams were tied in the computer ratings, but Florida had a 38-point lead in the Harris poll and a 26-point advantage in the coaches' poll.
Michigan's consolation prize is a Rose Bowl bid to play USC (10-2), a classic Big Ten vs. Pac-10 matchup of teams left to wonder what could have been.
"I don't think they (Florida) would have moved ahead of us if USC would have won the game," said Michigan coach Lloyd Carr.
In other bowls:
_ Big 12 champion Oklahoma will meet unbeaten Boise State in the Fiesta on Jan. 1.
_ Big East champion Louisville will play ACC champion Wake Forest in the Orange on Jan. 2.
_ LSU will take Florida's spot in the Sugar and play Notre Dame on Jan. 3.
Complete Bowl Schedule
Expert picks to be posted later.........
Gators Will Face Buckeyes for BCS TitleFlorida beat Michigan on Sunday in the only game that mattered. The Gators, who lobbied hard for this victory, were picked to play No. 1 Ohio State for college football's national championship, ending any chance for the Wolverines to get the rematch they so desired and thought they deserved. But Florida got in by a whisker _ just a hundredth of a point in the Bowl Championship Series standings.
The Gators had a BCS average of .944, and the Wolverines were just behind at .934. The teams were tied in the computer ratings, but Florida had a 38-point lead in the Harris poll and a 26-point advantage in the coaches' poll.
Michigan's consolation prize is a Rose Bowl bid to play USC (10-2), a classic Big Ten vs. Pac-10 matchup of teams left to wonder what could have been.
"I don't think they (Florida) would have moved ahead of us if USC would have won the game," said Michigan coach Lloyd Carr.
In other bowls:
_ Big 12 champion Oklahoma will meet unbeaten Boise State in the Fiesta on Jan. 1.
_ Big East champion Louisville will play ACC champion Wake Forest in the Orange on Jan. 2.
_ LSU will take Florida's spot in the Sugar and play Notre Dame on Jan. 3.
Complete Bowl Schedule
Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters is calling for a play-off system that is still suspect. Any reduction in regular season games or a format that might only fill stadiums half way seems to stifle any system that takes MONEY out of the university's pockets. Ed seems to think the Woverines got shafted:
"So what happened? Two polls shifted Florida above Michigan, despite a moderately effective win against Arkansas and a bye week for the Wolverines. Had USC beaten UCLA as expected, Michigan would have likely remained in third place -- but the coaches and sports writers decided to skew the polls in order to prevent a rematch of Michigan against Ohio State for the national championship." (link)
Personally, I think the USC/Michigan game will be a good one. And we'll see soon if Florida is deserving of a title shot. With all due respect to the Cap, too many "if's" are present.Expert picks to be posted later.........
Sunday, December 03, 2006
AP vs Centcom
While AP still insist that the Six Sunnis Burned Alive story is true, many still doubt it. AP also is going to the mat with their defense of their source----Capt. Hussein. From NRO:
CENTCOM vs. AP Dispute Remains a Standoff (complete story)
It's tempting to write off, as some already have, the ongoing dispute between CENTCOM and the AP as just another MSM non-scandal stirred up by those crazy right-wing bloggers. For instance, take this raving nutjob from that notoriously conservative rag, the New York Times:
So Just Who Is Capt. Jamil Hussein?
Against the backdrop of the civil war, occupation, Baathist insurgency, sectarian conflict, and struggle against terrorists in Iraq, to borrow a few descriptors, in addition to the historic meeting between President Bush and Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki today, another battle is brewing. This one pits conservative bloggers and the military's communications machine against the Associated Press and the media at large. At the center of things is one police Capt. Jamil Hussein. Mr. Hussein was the primary source in an Associated Press wire-dispatch last Friday reporting that Shiite militiamen had "grabbed six Sunnis as they left Friday worship services, doused them with kerosene and burned them alive near Iraqi soldiers who did not intervene."
The one thing that remains unclear, though, is this: The Associated Press said in its story yesterday that Mr. Hussein "has been a regular source of police information for two years and had been visited by the AP reporter in his office at the police station on several occasions." The military, meanwhile, seems to suggest that Mr. Hussein is not a police officer, nor a civil servant in the employ of any Iraqi agency.
So who IS Mr. Hussein?
Good question. Despite statements from CENTCOM and an official spokesman for the Iraqi government, the AP is sticking with its initial answer:
As stated in AP's November 28 news story, this captain "has been a regular source of police information for two years and had been visited by the AP reporter in his office at the police station on several occasions."
"Navy Lieutenant Dean's statement seems to suggest that the news media should work solely from a government list of 'authorized sources.' But a free press cultivates a wide range of sources. That's what AP did in this case, as it always does."
Wrong. Dean did not argue, or even suggest, that the news media should work solely from approved sources. All he said was that the AP's source in this instance does not appear to be who he claims to be. Given our enemy's goal of driving us from Iraq by undermining domestic political support for our mission there, shouldn't the AP be making more of an effort to explain fully to its readers just who the hell this guy is?
My sources, (who have requested to remain anonymous),have told RovinsWorld that Capt Jamil Hussein is a figment of AP's imagination. Does this mean that AP has been fabricating storys (generated by Hussein) for over TWO YEARS? My request to AP would be----if the tooth fairy is real---prove it!
The National Review Online also posted this story (released by AP):
Iraqi Ministry Sets Up Team to Monitor News Reports
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Iraq's Interior Ministry said Thursday it had formed a special unit to monitor news coverage and vowed to take legal action against journalists who failed to correct stories the ministry deemed to be incorrect.Brig. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf, spokesman for the ministry, said the purpose of the special monitoring unit was to find "fabricated and false news that hurts and gives the Iraqis a wrong picture that the security situation is very bad, when the facts are totally different."
He said offenders would be notified and asked to "correct these false reports on their main news programs. But if they do not change those lying, false stories, then we will seek legal action against them."Khalaf explained the news monitoring unit at a weekly Ministry of Interior
briefing. As an example, he cited coverage by The Associated Press of an attack Nov. 24 on a mosque in the Hurriyah district in northwest Baghdad.
The AP threw in this paragraph at the end:
Under Saddam Hussein's regime, the government imposed censorship on local media and severely restricted foreign media coverage, monitoring transmissions and sending secret police to follow journalists. Those who violated the rules were expelled and in some cases jailed.
The reporter appears to be implying that this utterly banal PR initiative is a return to the bad old days of Saddam. Doesn't anyone at the AP read this stuff and think, "Wow. If we run something this hyperbolic, we're going to look really, really foolish." Apparently not. (h/t Mark E.)
While many here may say that this (monitor reporting staff) will be the first step in restricting news and events happening in Iraq, I would suggest it will be welcomed by many more who are sick and tired of reading propaganda supplied by the enemys of the Iraqi people, (and the U.S), and being told that everything reported is "the truth".
How many other times have these storys (produced by Capt Hussein) over the past TWO YEARS been nothing but fabrications? Has this single source been the primary source for what AP has supplied to the media across the world for the past two years? If Capt Hussein is nothing but an imposter (recruited by our enemys) who has supplied AP with nothing but total fabrications, how are we to judge the events that have transpired in Iraq for the past two years?
How many other "Capt Husseins" have been an intrical part of AP's reporting?
Can AP answer any of these questions before their credibility as a prominent news service ends up on another "please flush the toilet" sign in our port-ta-poddys?
UPDATE: Michelle Malkin has a Dec 4th post that sums up the current affairs with AP on this story. (And more questions are being asked)
UPDATE ll: Bizzy has a sumation here:
"Sorry, Mr. Zeller, AP, et al. Just off the top of my head, I am “legitimately curious” why “Jamil Hussein” stays in the shadows, why no one can name or produce the five of six who allegedly died, why the morgue is said to have no records of these deaths, why no one can find any relatives of the five to talk to, and why there is apparently no local news coverage naming the dead to cite. And I am “legitimately curious” as to why an allegedly “venerable, trusted” news agency that can’t or won’t answer these simple questions has any right to claim more credibility than the military, where people who commit dishonest acts receive disciplinary action instead of Pulitzers."
Echo.........echo..........echo.........
CENTCOM vs. AP Dispute Remains a Standoff (complete story)
It's tempting to write off, as some already have, the ongoing dispute between CENTCOM and the AP as just another MSM non-scandal stirred up by those crazy right-wing bloggers. For instance, take this raving nutjob from that notoriously conservative rag, the New York Times:
So Just Who Is Capt. Jamil Hussein?
Against the backdrop of the civil war, occupation, Baathist insurgency, sectarian conflict, and struggle against terrorists in Iraq, to borrow a few descriptors, in addition to the historic meeting between President Bush and Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki today, another battle is brewing. This one pits conservative bloggers and the military's communications machine against the Associated Press and the media at large. At the center of things is one police Capt. Jamil Hussein. Mr. Hussein was the primary source in an Associated Press wire-dispatch last Friday reporting that Shiite militiamen had "grabbed six Sunnis as they left Friday worship services, doused them with kerosene and burned them alive near Iraqi soldiers who did not intervene."
The one thing that remains unclear, though, is this: The Associated Press said in its story yesterday that Mr. Hussein "has been a regular source of police information for two years and had been visited by the AP reporter in his office at the police station on several occasions." The military, meanwhile, seems to suggest that Mr. Hussein is not a police officer, nor a civil servant in the employ of any Iraqi agency.
So who IS Mr. Hussein?
Good question. Despite statements from CENTCOM and an official spokesman for the Iraqi government, the AP is sticking with its initial answer:
As stated in AP's November 28 news story, this captain "has been a regular source of police information for two years and had been visited by the AP reporter in his office at the police station on several occasions."
"Navy Lieutenant Dean's statement seems to suggest that the news media should work solely from a government list of 'authorized sources.' But a free press cultivates a wide range of sources. That's what AP did in this case, as it always does."
Wrong. Dean did not argue, or even suggest, that the news media should work solely from approved sources. All he said was that the AP's source in this instance does not appear to be who he claims to be. Given our enemy's goal of driving us from Iraq by undermining domestic political support for our mission there, shouldn't the AP be making more of an effort to explain fully to its readers just who the hell this guy is?
My sources, (who have requested to remain anonymous),have told RovinsWorld that Capt Jamil Hussein is a figment of AP's imagination. Does this mean that AP has been fabricating storys (generated by Hussein) for over TWO YEARS? My request to AP would be----if the tooth fairy is real---prove it!
The National Review Online also posted this story (released by AP):
Iraqi Ministry Sets Up Team to Monitor News Reports
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Iraq's Interior Ministry said Thursday it had formed a special unit to monitor news coverage and vowed to take legal action against journalists who failed to correct stories the ministry deemed to be incorrect.Brig. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf, spokesman for the ministry, said the purpose of the special monitoring unit was to find "fabricated and false news that hurts and gives the Iraqis a wrong picture that the security situation is very bad, when the facts are totally different."
He said offenders would be notified and asked to "correct these false reports on their main news programs. But if they do not change those lying, false stories, then we will seek legal action against them."Khalaf explained the news monitoring unit at a weekly Ministry of Interior
briefing. As an example, he cited coverage by The Associated Press of an attack Nov. 24 on a mosque in the Hurriyah district in northwest Baghdad.
The AP threw in this paragraph at the end:
Under Saddam Hussein's regime, the government imposed censorship on local media and severely restricted foreign media coverage, monitoring transmissions and sending secret police to follow journalists. Those who violated the rules were expelled and in some cases jailed.
The reporter appears to be implying that this utterly banal PR initiative is a return to the bad old days of Saddam. Doesn't anyone at the AP read this stuff and think, "Wow. If we run something this hyperbolic, we're going to look really, really foolish." Apparently not. (h/t Mark E.)
While many here may say that this (monitor reporting staff) will be the first step in restricting news and events happening in Iraq, I would suggest it will be welcomed by many more who are sick and tired of reading propaganda supplied by the enemys of the Iraqi people, (and the U.S), and being told that everything reported is "the truth".
How many other times have these storys (produced by Capt Hussein) over the past TWO YEARS been nothing but fabrications? Has this single source been the primary source for what AP has supplied to the media across the world for the past two years? If Capt Hussein is nothing but an imposter (recruited by our enemys) who has supplied AP with nothing but total fabrications, how are we to judge the events that have transpired in Iraq for the past two years?
How many other "Capt Husseins" have been an intrical part of AP's reporting?
Can AP answer any of these questions before their credibility as a prominent news service ends up on another "please flush the toilet" sign in our port-ta-poddys?
UPDATE: Michelle Malkin has a Dec 4th post that sums up the current affairs with AP on this story. (And more questions are being asked)
UPDATE ll: Bizzy has a sumation here:
"Sorry, Mr. Zeller, AP, et al. Just off the top of my head, I am “legitimately curious” why “Jamil Hussein” stays in the shadows, why no one can name or produce the five of six who allegedly died, why the morgue is said to have no records of these deaths, why no one can find any relatives of the five to talk to, and why there is apparently no local news coverage naming the dead to cite. And I am “legitimately curious” as to why an allegedly “venerable, trusted” news agency that can’t or won’t answer these simple questions has any right to claim more credibility than the military, where people who commit dishonest acts receive disciplinary action instead of Pulitzers."
Echo.........echo..........echo.........
Saturday, December 02, 2006
Media Bias in Todays National and World Affairs
My very dear friend (of over 30 years) and I got into a heated debate the other night. The topics ranged from the situation in the middle east and then ventured into the political spectrum here at home. For close to two hours there were ebbs and tides of innuendoes, emotions, statements of fact, and (sometimes) out-right absurbities. When my friend (he preferred the moniker of "Highmoon") finally stated that there was no media bias, I went through the roof----almost literally. After I came down from my tirade, and gathered my emotions, I suggested we put Highmoon's statements concerning media bias to an online post and solicit other-wise calmer opinions. While my friend does not use the term MSM through-out our conversation, he does insinuate the term by his framed statement below.
How is the media perceived by our society today? This question would have to be divided into two separate notions----our own national media and the worlds media. While they are both intertwined in forming our opinions, please specify when you are framing your comments.
Highmoon says: "It is not a left (liberal) biased media, it a economic biased media."
Here's where my blood pressure rose (briefly) and I needed to frame his statement so I could understand where he was going with this. I also told him that I believed there was a definite liberal media bias and it is loaded with distortions and is agenda driven to destroy conservative thought and reasoning. I also told Highmoon that I felt the liberal medias bias played far too much of a part in framing the election process in our nation.
In replying to Highmoon's original statement I asked:
Rovin: "Should this be framed as a question or a statement of fact? I need to know if you believe there is no media bias.
Highmoon (from Highmoon Dances) says: "The media sells what people buy.The media that we financally support thru purchasing the products of advertisers, or the access to the media itself, sells us what we want to hear."
While this statement may have some truths unto itself, I felt that Highmoon was dancing a bit away from his original thought. I explained that while I do read the liberal media's "output", I rarely agree with what is written as truthful and unbiased. Case in point was the recent "world-wide" story released by the Associated Press that six sunnis were dragged out into the street, doused with kerosene, and burned alive. I put the emphasis on "world-wide" because over 90% of the worlds media printed this story as if it actually was factual, when it is still being disputed by many that this NEVER HAPPENED, AND WAS A TOTAL FABRICATION, created by AP through sources that to this day are still in question. (links here and here)
Highmoon is not here now, and therefore can not defend or comment on the direction of this debate. So I will put it up here for discussion, and allow him to comment when a computer is available to him. In the meantime feel free to supply your input.
(note: I should include that our original 2 hour argument started with discussing the state of our involvement in the middle east and the ongoing debate of what should and can be done. Highmoon does believe that it was a total error for our President to remove Saddam Hussein from power. He also has expressed the belief that this "removal" was based only for the purpose of controlling the oil fields in the region to line the pockets of the Presidents "buddies". While I would agree to some extent that the control and the free flow of oil in the middle east is critical to our national and economic security, I do not believe that our President started a this war for the soul purpose of lining his buddies pockets. While this premise may be debatable, (and I think it has little merit), I would prefer that we keep this discussion (for the most part) on the media's involvement in national and world affairs, and how it has impacted all of us.)
Have at it!
How is the media perceived by our society today? This question would have to be divided into two separate notions----our own national media and the worlds media. While they are both intertwined in forming our opinions, please specify when you are framing your comments.
Highmoon says: "It is not a left (liberal) biased media, it a economic biased media."
Here's where my blood pressure rose (briefly) and I needed to frame his statement so I could understand where he was going with this. I also told him that I believed there was a definite liberal media bias and it is loaded with distortions and is agenda driven to destroy conservative thought and reasoning. I also told Highmoon that I felt the liberal medias bias played far too much of a part in framing the election process in our nation.
In replying to Highmoon's original statement I asked:
Rovin: "Should this be framed as a question or a statement of fact? I need to know if you believe there is no media bias.
Highmoon (from Highmoon Dances) says: "The media sells what people buy.The media that we financally support thru purchasing the products of advertisers, or the access to the media itself, sells us what we want to hear."
While this statement may have some truths unto itself, I felt that Highmoon was dancing a bit away from his original thought. I explained that while I do read the liberal media's "output", I rarely agree with what is written as truthful and unbiased. Case in point was the recent "world-wide" story released by the Associated Press that six sunnis were dragged out into the street, doused with kerosene, and burned alive. I put the emphasis on "world-wide" because over 90% of the worlds media printed this story as if it actually was factual, when it is still being disputed by many that this NEVER HAPPENED, AND WAS A TOTAL FABRICATION, created by AP through sources that to this day are still in question. (links here and here)
Highmoon is not here now, and therefore can not defend or comment on the direction of this debate. So I will put it up here for discussion, and allow him to comment when a computer is available to him. In the meantime feel free to supply your input.
(note: I should include that our original 2 hour argument started with discussing the state of our involvement in the middle east and the ongoing debate of what should and can be done. Highmoon does believe that it was a total error for our President to remove Saddam Hussein from power. He also has expressed the belief that this "removal" was based only for the purpose of controlling the oil fields in the region to line the pockets of the Presidents "buddies". While I would agree to some extent that the control and the free flow of oil in the middle east is critical to our national and economic security, I do not believe that our President started a this war for the soul purpose of lining his buddies pockets. While this premise may be debatable, (and I think it has little merit), I would prefer that we keep this discussion (for the most part) on the media's involvement in national and world affairs, and how it has impacted all of us.)
Have at it!
Friday, December 01, 2006
Rovins Exit Strategy
Formula for withdrawal(Coitus interruptus) from Iraq:
United States and Coalition Forces (US&CF) will withdraw from Iraq immediately with the following conditions:
Fire one shot in the direction of US&CF---------We stay two more weeks
Fire one shot and hit a member of US&CF------We stay two more months
Fire one shot and kill a member of US&CF------We stay six more months (per death)
IED's that result in the death of US&CF--------We stay one year
Suicides that result in the death of members of US&CF or any civilians------We stay one year + six months for each individual death
Grenades, RPG's, and any other explosive devices that result in the death of US&CF or civilians-----(see suicides)
WMD's that result in the death of anyone--------You're toast----and WE NEVER LEAVE.
To the people of Iraq, Iran, Syria, (and those concerned), WHEN CAN WE LEAVE? !!
Note to Sectarian factions living (killing each other) in Iraq: Seek Iraqi government for actions and solutions. (Grow up and get some balls)
Note to al Qaeda: Go fuck yourself and die. (stronger message to follow)
United States and Coalition Forces (US&CF) will withdraw from Iraq immediately with the following conditions:
Fire one shot in the direction of US&CF---------We stay two more weeks
Fire one shot and hit a member of US&CF------We stay two more months
Fire one shot and kill a member of US&CF------We stay six more months (per death)
IED's that result in the death of US&CF--------We stay one year
Suicides that result in the death of members of US&CF or any civilians------We stay one year + six months for each individual death
Grenades, RPG's, and any other explosive devices that result in the death of US&CF or civilians-----(see suicides)
WMD's that result in the death of anyone--------You're toast----and WE NEVER LEAVE.
To the people of Iraq, Iran, Syria, (and those concerned), WHEN CAN WE LEAVE? !!
Note to Sectarian factions living (killing each other) in Iraq: Seek Iraqi government for actions and solutions. (Grow up and get some balls)
Note to al Qaeda: Go fuck yourself and die. (stronger message to follow)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)