mypetjawa v. 2.0 (beta) "<i>Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to ev

February 13, 2005

Media Bias: An Overview

In the wake of the Gannon and Jordan affairs, there has been a resurrection of discussions about media bias: whether it exists, and its nature if it does exist. For myself, this examination began recently with my post on the Fourth Estate in which I evidently forgot to code my html for hyperbole for calling journalists Stalinist, and was fairly called out on it by Rick DeMent of Unspecified Chatter (nee, the Rant).

More broadly, two recent blog posts have provided a reasonably cogent defense of the so-called Mainstream Media (MSM) from folks sitting within the game itself; the first, from Steve Silver (courtesy Michael Totten) gets what appears to be a fairly solid fisking from commenter JBP at February 10, 2005 09:30 AM in Michael Totten's thread. The other is by one Derek Rose, who is also a 'member' of the media, and takes the form of a rebuttal of an open letter by a Marine in Iraq. In this one, Mr. Rose is deserving of credit, if nothing else, by sticking around in the comments and replying to his detractors.

But unfortunately, neither of these defenses or much of the immediate response provides much more than a he said, she said approach and fails to apply much thought to the problem. This is, to a certain extent, to be expected since folks on both sides of the aisle seem to think that the day-to-day conduct of major media outlets is, in and of itself, prima facie evidence of bias of some sort or another.

more...

Posted by: Bravo Romeo Delta at 10:57 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 3022 words, total size 21 kb.

1 This is a wonderfully written, informative paper. The only (small) criticism i can give it is the failure to explain just what "ADA" is. ( I know what it means, but many readers would not. I can offer an example of "moment news" myself, that I came across not 10 minutes ago (2255 PST 13 feb 05): http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=3&u=/ap/mall_shooting The reporter says "assault rifle", obviously because the phrase is an attention-grabber, when the text of the article clearly manifests that the reporter actually has no idea what sort of weapon was used. To some reporters any self-loading firearm is an "assault weapon" Although outside paper's scope, another problem with modern journalism with its deviation from the reporters role as "stenographer of record" is the exposure of reporters ignorance as well as their biases. A court stenographer does not need to know the details of forensic science to report upon them. However, when someone feels to comment upon such things, one would reasonable suppose the commentator knows what he or she is talking about. Sadly, this is often not the case. Too often I have caught professional jouralists making almost laughable factual errors. Another casualty of "moment journalism" is fact checking. The reporters and news writers are under enormous pressure to produce a "product" as quickly as possible. They know what their editors and publishers like or don't like; or they don't last long. thus, the temptation is almost overwehlming to err on the side of the boss's known biases. Dan rather has not been an actual reporter in decades; he was a news reader. but the people that wrote the copy put in front of him knew what he liked.

Posted by: Lucius Severus Pertinax at February 14, 2005 01:15 AM (n7lic)

2 One thing I've noticed is that NPR (which I listen to during my commute mainly to know what the soci*lists are up to)has referred to President Bush as a "lame duck" on at least 8 different occasions, starting with his re-election and as recently as last week. What I've been trying to find out was the number of times and when they referred to Bill Clinton as a lame duck. My recollection was that I never heard them referring to Clinton as a lame duck near the end of his term and certainly not the first week of his second. At the time I wasn't interested in political parties very much one way or the other though so I may have been oblivious to such statements. PS - did you know that you can't write the word soc*alist in comments or it gets blocked for containing c*alis? Too funny.

Posted by: James at February 14, 2005 01:33 PM (rP4OC)

3 I am quite annoyed that you cant say Social*ism but you can say Nazism

Posted by: Red Wolf at February 14, 2005 08:01 PM (ISUWO)

4 HHHmmmmmmmmmmmm..............COMMUNISM!!!

Posted by: Red Wolf at February 14, 2005 08:03 PM (ISUWO)

5 Has it occurred to you that the Republican party itself has tilted SO far to the right in the last 10 years, and the so-called liberal Democratic party is so centrist, that reporting what is centrist would seem leftist to the average Republican? For example, my many Republican friends said for years that the religous right was the wacky extreme end of the party, and I should not pay much attention to them. One of their own now sits in the White House. What is considered mainstream in the rest of the civilized world is considered radical left here. For example, we are the only major industrialized country without universal healthcare. The only one. Also, the so-called liberal Supreme Court (7 of the justices were appointed by a Republican president) repeatedly strikes down as unconstitutional many of the pet laws of the Republicans (prayer in school, making abortions illegal without regard to the mother's health). So if quite a few items on the Republican agenda are not constitutional, but the Republicans see them as mainstream, then of course they would view objective reporting as leftist. As for Iraq, I saw a poll that said about 75% of Republicans agreed that Saddam had something to do with Sept 11, when the facts show he didn't. So again, reporting objectively will be seen as leftist on this issue. And the earth really is much older than 10,000 years old, so again objective reporting on this would be seen as leftist by Republicans. It's not that the media is biased. It's that the current Republican party is so far to the right that they've lost touch completely with the rest of the industrialized world.

Posted by: Beth at February 17, 2005 04:57 PM (coSVR)

6 Please note that the example given of a story that could write itself, was completely and entirely fictitious. No Peace Corps volunteers were lost in the recent tsunami disaster in Asia.

Posted by: none at February 18, 2005 04:15 PM (T02RL)

7 Make sure to note that The Media Research Center is a conservative publication. You could also note, in the same paragraph with your cite on the media research center, the power and influence of the corporation that owns the media as well as copy editors (who tell journalists what stories to cover), and other editors whom the journalists must conform to through time. This is the most obvious criticism of the constantly tired, and blatently blind argument about the journalists affiliation. Really, is news the only industry where the employees get to run the business? Hmmm... A more honest approach would be to look at the editors, who are hired, fired and picked by corporate america (and between you and me, I'm sure they are looking to pick up as many liberal anti corporate editors as they can find! winky, winky) final note: not every study finds the overwhelming bias that research media center has found among journalists (i.e., it's exhaustive only to the point of covering conservative ideas. also, radio DOES have a huge audience. Not counting radio is like not counting Limbaugh's influence times 10. He's not 'mainstream', well cause he's a nut, but he is influential. Unless you havn't seen any information showing how pervasive radio is (common, lots of people commute and turn on a.m. radio and probably always will) sincerely, not convinced. You had, self admitted weak attempts at balance, but show far to many weaknesses for your beliefs.

Posted by: clyde at June 13, 2005 01:30 PM (CWnjS)

8 After doing a little digging, and some creative Googling, I was able to locate the "Stanford Study" referenced above. The study was "A Measure of Media Bias", by Tim Groseclose at Stanford and Jeff Milyo at the University of Missouri. While most references point back to Yale as being the primary repository for the study, I have found it in several other locations, including http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/MediaBias.pdf. Beth, To suggest that the Republican party has drifted so far to the right over the past ten or so years, "that reporting what is centrist would seem leftist to the average Republican", would suggest that you have either completely forgotten, ignored or are blissfully unaware of the 1980s. Have you forgotten the likes of Jim and Tammy Faye Baker, Jerry Falwell, Billy Graham and the PMRC? That was a time of truly radical conservative thinking. Sorry, but we're not even close to that. (Thank God, Allah, etc). While their may be an effort on the part of the party to pursue a more conservative agenda, it is no different than the approach that the Democrats have been taking to drive themselves further and further to the left. Case in point - Howard Dean running the party. But, I think you are simply missing the gist of the argument. Who cares what the parties and their supporters think? The question is whether the media provides an biased or unbiased view of the world in which we live. As a 40 year old "moderate", (for example, pro-abortion and capital punishment) I say "Hell Yes!" the media is biased, and I've got about 25-30 years of listening experience to prove it. Damn the media. They are no better than the politicians they report on. They all lie and cheat, just for different reasons.

Posted by: Mark at June 24, 2005 02:06 AM (5gxgO)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

February 12, 2005

News Flash

Eason Jordan quits.

Posted by: Bravo Romeo Delta at 09:50 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 7 words, total size 1 kb.

February 11, 2005

Star Wars 'Chowda' Blogging

Posted by: Rusty at 02:25 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.

Whose Side Are They On? The Lynne Stewart Conviction

by Demosophist

Wretchard has a post up about Lynne Stewart's conviction wherein he makes the observation not only that the compassion of the left is selective, but that it's conditioned by the Left's "refusal to acknowledge anything smaller than a mass noun." The essence of this perspective concerns the evidence that Stewart, along with some co-conspirators, sought to use the leverage of the kidnapping of civilians, including "poor" Filipinos and children as well as the sick and elderly, to leverage their negotiations for the Sheik's treatment and release. In essence it concerns a defacto alliance with the Al Qaeda-affiliated kidnappers. It's instructive to consider just how the Left and Stewart's team are spinning this story, including the presentation of their attempts to employ the leverage of the kidnappings. more...

Posted by: Demosophist at 12:11 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 739 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Lynne Stewart is lucky she wasnt tried for TREASON!!! Thank god a jury saw through her ridiculous defense and did the right thing. Our only hope is that they throw the book at her and let her rot in prison! M.W.

Posted by: MIGHTY WHITEY at February 11, 2005 12:40 PM (julWr)

2 I applaud the jury for their courage and their integrity. I pray the judge will get some of both,

Posted by: Rod Stanton at February 11, 2005 01:39 PM (gVJtb)

3 Maybe there is hope after all....I was shocked at the verdict, only because I thought she would get away with it. Thankfully she didn't!

Posted by: Steve D at February 11, 2005 02:24 PM (L/wan)

4 The MSM neglects to point out that she was convicted by a jury of her peers. That's pretty damning in itself. They make it seem like some Bush appointee convicted her.

Posted by: Hammertime at February 11, 2005 02:28 PM (cFg3z)

5 The MSM has not reported *news* for 60 years, if they ever did. The MSM reports what they want us to think as Rathergate proved this is frequently a flat out lie. Same with the reporting 37 years ago on the violation of the Tet ceas fire by the NVA/ChiCom.

Posted by: Rod Stanton at February 12, 2005 07:48 AM (gVJtb)

6 The fact that she is connected with Ramsey Clark, William Kuntsler and International ANSWER which is affiliated with the World Workers Party explains some of the jargon that she uses...she approves Â“directed violence,Â” which Â– as she explained to the New York Times Â– Â“would be violence directed at the institutions which perpetuate capitalism, racism and sexism.Â” The World Trade Center for instance. At the National Lawyers Guild annual convention last year she attacked the US as having Â“a poisonous government that spreads its venom to the body politic in all corners of the globe,Â” and raised a glass to her heroes: Â“Ho and Mao and Lenin, Fidel Â…Â” and of course Che Guevara whom she quoted: Â“At the risk of seeming ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love.Â” Some love. Hope she finds some in prison.

Posted by: Cao at February 12, 2005 09:10 PM (RyucI)

7 Broads like Lynne Stewart are the reason ugly chicks should wear Burkas. Did she ever once wash her hair? Anyone see her husband? Imagine. He plows into that. I think Im going to be sick. I am sure however, that she will find hot,sweet love in jail.

Posted by: Filthy Allah at February 13, 2005 09:47 AM (cXqSY)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Ligers, and tigons, and bears

oh my!!

Posted by: Rusty at 11:40 AM | Comments (35) | Add Comment
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.

Certifiable

Ironical.

Posted by: Rusty at 11:37 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 3 words, total size 1 kb.

Blame Canada

Sharia at out borders...(via Llama Butchers)

Posted by: Rusty at 11:32 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 10 words, total size 1 kb.

1 What a bunch of dumbfucks.

Posted by: LCVRWC at February 11, 2005 01:10 PM (L3qPK)

2 Wonderful! Watching Canada self-destruct under the weight of its loony leftism is most enjoyable.

Posted by: David at February 12, 2005 11:49 PM (aOdhJ)

3 FUCK YOU, I AM A CANDIAN YOU BASTARDS, WE DIDNT DO ANYTHING TO IRAQ, THAT FUCKING ASSHOLE BUSH DID, HE IS THE ONE RESPONSIBLE, ALL THAT IRAQ IS SIMPLY SAYING THROUGH THE BEHEADINGS IS TO GET THE FUCK OUT OF THEIR COUNTRY. But of coruse not, Bush wants everything in the work to be free like his asshairs whenever he thinks up a plan (or something stupider). Lets face it, your fuckheaded president is a moron. Here in canada, we are peavemakers, not shit disturbers.

Posted by: Zarcom at February 14, 2005 12:11 AM (ZKCOc)

4 Zarkie, Your vast country is populated by only 32 million people. In 10 years, Ontario will be populated by a majority of muslems. I hope we turn your shitbird ass back to Canada when you try to come over for asylum. Oh, and you welfare state fucks can all forget about free heroin and that gay marrage shit when ole allah takes over. fuck you

Posted by: Brad at February 14, 2005 08:28 AM (+7VNs)

5 Meh, this is completely overblown. It took Canada decades to even consider limited aboriginal self-government (a people with more sympathies across Canada than Muslims), so the adoption of anything close to Shariah law is, realistically speaking, a ways off, if at all possible. Not to mention that Canadian laws will continue to supercede all others (aboriginal, Muslim, or otherwise).

Posted by: Venom at February 14, 2005 10:11 AM (dbxVM)

6 ZARCOM: You are certainly right. Canada didn't do a thing to Iraq. How's it feel to be chickenshitadian?

Posted by: greyrooster at February 19, 2005 03:34 PM (CBNGy)

7 canada is a land or fist fucking, dictator loving, "America protect us" saying fuck sticks! OH, and hockey sucks!

Posted by: ptbrake at February 26, 2005 05:46 PM (qy6Q5)

8 USA stands for YOU SUCK AMERIA.By the way i'am olny 12 years old.Canada rocs amd usa sucks like hellllllll.Canada has more Stanley Cups than YOU SUCK AMERIA.

Posted by: 50CENT at February 28, 2005 06:31 PM (yVXTt)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

What the world needs now.....

...like I need a hole in my head. (pic via: no pasaran)

Posted by: Rusty at 11:19 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.

He lives

The Commissar speaketh.......

Posted by: Rusty at 11:08 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 7 words, total size 1 kb.

Zarqawi Mistakingly Released

Wow, talk about incompetence.....but at least were still hot on the trail. Kuna:

Eyewitnesses Thursday reported to the authorities and claimed terrorist leader Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi was seen in Kirkuk this morning, Kirkuk Police Commander Sarhat Qader told reporters.
The official said "still unconfirmed" information suggested Al-Zarqawi was seen in Kirkuk today in a white vehicle.
This after interior ministry investigations showed Al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian, was actually captured and released after security personnel failed to recognize him. The US prize for his head or assisting in his capture stands at USD 10 million.

Hat tip: Reliapundit

Posted by: Rusty at 10:07 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 101 words, total size 1 kb.

February 10, 2005

Lawyer Convicted of Helping Terrorist Clients

Win one for the good guys! Lynne Stewart has been convicted of passing information from her terrorist client Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman and the radical Egyptian Brotherhood. The Sheik was a key figure in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman was serving a life sentence in a Minnesota jail under a court order that he was to have no contact with the outside world (except for his wife and lawyer) when Stewart passed a message that the jailed cleric no longer supported a cease-fire with the Egyptian government. 'The Blind Sheik' had also been convicted of plotting to assasinate Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

Stewart now faces up to twenty years in prison. Let's hope she gets the maximum sentence.

More: CNN, Reuters

Posted by: Rusty at 03:47 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 136 words, total size 1 kb.

1 She should be executed. Forthwith.

Posted by: Preston Taylor Holmes at February 10, 2005 03:53 PM (WsZ4F)

2 why can't we use the same laws to prosecute eason, and the rest of the MSM who carry water and PROPAGANDA for the enemy!?!?!?

Posted by: reliapundit at February 10, 2005 04:44 PM (LIoo8)

3 If we get another 50,000 progressive lawyers in jail it will save millions of lives both in America and elsewhere. Thank God a jury with brains and guts.

Posted by: Rod Stanton at February 10, 2005 05:29 PM (gVJtb)

4 HEY I LOVE THIS BLOG. ITS THE BEST BLOG I HAVE READ SO FAR IN MY LIFE! KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK AND KEEP US INFORMED

Posted by: Billy Faeth at February 10, 2005 07:50 PM (tH51F)

5 Eason did not help terrorists plan to kill Americans; all he did is say America is bad. She helped send instructions to Muslim terrorists on how to kill Americans. There is a very big difference. I do not approve of the anti-America bogotry the MSM has had for 60 years, in most cases I support their right to call me names. On the other hand anyone trying to harm me I will try to kill.

Posted by: Rod Stanton at February 11, 2005 04:59 AM (gVJtb)

6 I am amazed that the filth known as Pelosi has not rushed to her aid.

Posted by: Allah's cousin Earl at February 11, 2005 07:42 AM (yBHNA)

7 Everytime I hear the word progressive I think elitist asshole with shit for brains. I don't know if it is just me or something but after seeing what progressives are like I can't help but view them with distaine. They view their ideas as supreme and everyone elses as superficial. Yet, everytime I have ever engaged in a conversation with one they talk out of bothsides of their mouths. I honestly don't think they understand what they are talking about and I keep getting the image of one of my parrots. They too don't understand what they are saying but they say it over and over.

Posted by: Andre at February 11, 2005 08:23 AM (2kPXV)

8 First Hakeem Olajuwon donates money to the terrorists and now this?!? Blimey!

Posted by: Paladin at February 11, 2005 08:24 AM (Rfqkp)

9 But the Reuters article doesn't say exactly what she did!

Posted by: Libertarian Girl at February 11, 2005 10:32 AM (NigL1)

10 Lynne Stewart was convicted of helping a radical Egyptian sheik pass secret messages from inside prison to followers in his homeland, urging them to launch violent terrorist attacks. Stewart, 65, was charged with aiding a U.S.-designated terror organization, the Islamic Group, wage a broad murder and kidnapping conspiracy. Prosecutors say she and two co-defendants helped her former client, imprisoned blind cleric Omar Abdel Rahman, transmit messages to the group's leaders in defiance of prison restrictions. ``I know I committed no crime,'' Stewart said outside the courthouse in lower Manhattan after the jury returned its guilty verdict. ``I know what I did was right.'' Stewart said the case against her wouldn't have been brought if not for the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. Stewart defended Rahman, the Islamic Group's spiritual leader, against 1993 charges that he plotted to blow up the United Nations, an FBI building, two tunnels, and a bridge in New York City. He was convicted in 1995 and is serving a life sentence in a high security prison, where Stewart had numerous meetings with him. Stewart, whose clients have included mobsters and political radicals, said she was being prosecuted for her role as an outspoken lawyer. She says she never intended to promote terrorism. `Fear' Stewart's lawyer, Michael Tigar, said he was disappointed at the verdict and vowed to appeal. Trial began in the case in June. ``The jury rendered the verdict more on fear than on the reality of what faced them,'' he said. From 1997 to 2002, Stewart and her co-defendants helped Rahman pass messages to followers in violation of government- imposed restrictions, prosecutors alleged. Rahman relied on the three to withdraw his support for the Islamic Group's cease-fire with the Egyptian government, which the organization adopted after its 1997 attack left 62 people dead in Luxor, Egypt, the U.S. government contended. Stewart, along with Rahman aide Ahmed Abdel Sattar, 44, and interpreter Mohammed Yousry, 48, were accused of conspiring to defraud the U.S. government. Stewart and Yousry also faced charges of conspiring to provide material support to terrorists. Prison Visit During a May 19, 2000, prison visit taped by authorities, Stewart allegedly made ``extraneous comments in English'' to drown out a conversation in Arabic between Rahman and Yousry about the Islamic Group's cease-fire with the Egyptian government, prosecutors said. The next day, Rahman dictated a letter to Yousry withdrawing his support for the cease-fire, ``while Stewart actively concealed the conversation,'' prosecutors said. Rahman was prohibited under the conditions of his 1995 imprisonment ``from passing or receiving any written or recorded communications'' to or from other inmates, visitors, or his attorney. In 1999, those restrictions were amended to prohibit him from communicating with the news media in person or through his attorneys, prosecutors said. Stewart, who promised to abide by the agreement, violated those rules and helped Rahman pass secret messages to his followers in Egypt, authorities said. Daughter of Schoolteachers With Stewart's and Yousry's help, Rahman in March 1999 issued a directive from prison advising the Islamic Group to adhere to a cease-fire with the Egyptian government, prosecutors said. Rahman reversed himself in a September 1999 statement communicated through Yousry, following a raid on the Islamic Group by Egyptian police, authorities said. Stewart, the daughter of Irish-American schoolteachers, has defended controversial clients for two decades, from Larry Davis, a drug dealer accused of shooting six New York City police officers in 1986, to David Gilbert, a 1970s radical charged in the fatal robbery of an armored car.

Posted by: Dave at February 11, 2005 11:13 AM (WICUl)

11 It is great to see this article but you still need to post what was actually passed verbatim and specifically to whom. If you leave out that information then we cannot tell if you are distorting what happened. If you can be as clear as possible and you position is drawn from the clear facts then your position is strengthened.

Posted by: Press at February 28, 2005 10:12 AM (w/CcG)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Little Eichmanns Falling

Background... ...Great analysis (via Dean)..

UPDATE: Kevin has more today in his WND piece:

In 2001 Colorado University, "professor" and chairman of its ethnic studies department, Ward Churchill published a 10-page, single-spaced, incoherent rant against America. In it he states that the events of 9-11 were the "chickens coming home to roost." He stated that the 3,000 lives lost should be considered legitimate military targeting. He stated that the terrorists had given testament to great patience since their failed efforts in the 1993 bombing. He favorably compared those who were killed in the Twin Towers to Adolph Eichmann of World War II's Nazi Germany....
A perfect storm in favor of those who wish to slaughter Americans is forming, and it is being escalated by the terrorists, Eason Jordan and Ward Churchill. They may not claim to all be on the same team, but it sure looks to me like they use the same playbook.

Ace has more on the Indian angle.....and Jeff G.

*for Allah....

OTB

Posted by: Rusty at 03:25 PM | Comments (27) | Add Comment
Post contains 171 words, total size 2 kb.

1 I'll pass on this.

Posted by: elliott at February 10, 2005 11:59 AM (yYGP5)

2 A picture is worth a thousand words. Nice.

Posted by: Paladin at February 10, 2005 12:04 PM (Rfqkp)

3 I know you're trying to prove a point, Rusty, but this is in very bad taste, even for you.

Posted by: Laura at February 10, 2005 12:15 PM (ptOpl)

4 Thanks, Russ. This could get you tenure at the University of Colorado, you know.

Posted by: Allah at February 10, 2005 12:30 PM (Lr/Az)

5 Agree with Laura. Churchill's bad enough without turning this into a goddam circus. I still can't look at that picture without shivering, much less laughing.

Posted by: Mike C at February 10, 2005 12:43 PM (63JS9)

6 Let me see if I get it. Mike C, this is about irony, not humor. If you laugh at this, you ain't right. Doctor, how'd I do?

Posted by: Patrick at February 10, 2005 12:51 PM (+Nj8c)

7 Patrick gets the "A". The only thing worse than this photoshop is the traitorous asshat who actually wrote those words. If I ever meet Ward Churchill......... Allah, thanks man. The blogosphere needs you back!!!

Posted by: Rusty at February 10, 2005 01:46 PM (JQjhA)

8 Of course I understand it's irony! But, it smarts to look at it, nonetheless. Some of us lost people in that building...for all I know, I could've known one of those jumpers. You can bring the point across without trying to bring home the message so blatantly is all I'm saying.

Posted by: Laura at February 10, 2005 03:03 PM (ptOpl)

9 Sorry to offend your sensibilities Laura, but I think this is a case where our sensibilities OUGHT to be offended. Churchill's words were not just hurful, they were traitorous.

Posted by: Rusty at February 10, 2005 03:05 PM (JQjhA)

10 Oh believe me, I know! The bastard should be drawn and quartered...no, wait, revoke his American citizenship and send his ass to Mosul or somewhere.

Posted by: Laura at February 10, 2005 03:07 PM (ptOpl)

11 If it's meant to be non-humorous irony, I guess I slept through the class where that distinction was explained. But whatever... Churchill's the asshole here, not you, so I'm sorry if I sounded too harsh.

Posted by: Mike C at February 10, 2005 03:29 PM (63JS9)

12 Spot on. I'm glad somebody put 2 + 2 together - Churchill is even more offensive when put in visual terms.

Posted by: Preston Taylor Holmes at February 10, 2005 03:44 PM (WsZ4F)

13 His face is just as ugly as his opinions.

Posted by: Laura at February 10, 2005 04:43 PM (ptOpl)

14 I knew I should have studied for that one.

Posted by: elliott at February 10, 2005 04:45 PM (yYGP5)

15 I have a # of relatives that are tenured full professors at some big name Us in the West but I am sure they would all agree this phoney gives all profs and teachers a very bad name. Of course none of these relatives let the people interviewing them know their pro-America feelings when they were interviewed; or they would not have been hired. Here in the West is is considered (and has been for 50 years) sophisticated and cosmopolitan to hate America and all it has stood for fo 230 years.

Posted by: Rod Stanton at February 10, 2005 05:37 PM (gVJtb)

16 THIS IS SICKENING, RUSTY, IN POOR TASTE, AND SOMETHING YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE PUT UP ON YOUR SITE. I CAN ONLY HOPE THAT NONE OF THE SURVIVORS OR THEIR FAMILES EVER SEES THIS PIECE OF GARBAGE. MADE ME GAG. YOU SHOULD HAVE BETTER SENSE THAN THIS. Cindy

Posted by: firstbrokenangel at February 10, 2005 09:43 PM (PEKrh)

17 Personally, I think just the picture without the speech bubbles would have been just as powerful a statement. Keeping the title, of course. As to taste, the damage was done by Churchill and his ilk.

Posted by: Eric at February 11, 2005 12:58 AM (lK7Sh)

18 Whatever the content is....this is sick-man!

Posted by: Johnny at February 11, 2005 04:26 AM (Xfl4H)

19 Ward Churchill deserves to have his teeth knocked down to his as**ole. Matter of fact, I wonder if those are real teeth or dentures. From what I have gathered on him and his ethnic studies he's been running his mouth in ways that would get average joe blacklisted for being a bigot.

Posted by: Andre at February 11, 2005 07:53 AM (2kPXV)

20 What is sick is that the media here was able to get away with NOT showing this on the nightly news - EVER! They'll happily show us crying Iraqis from an allied bombing, but Americans dying at the hands of the Jihadists is too much for us to take. (stolen in paraphrased fashion from Bill Whittle, who's book is wonderful and spot-on.)

Posted by: Patrick at February 11, 2005 08:53 AM (+Nj8c)

21 To quote my very first post I ever did "If you think this is offensive, just wait until I get warmed up."

Posted by: Rusty at February 11, 2005 08:56 AM (JQjhA)

22 Cindy, I understand your rage, as I was upset too, but then again, on the other hand, just think if the hostages' families were to come on the net and see the beheading videos! I'll admit there was no ironic humor in those videos, whereas, Rusty's was blatantly so. You know he's going to get his point across using shock value. Hey, Rust, we've already got Howard Stern for that shit!! ;-)

Posted by: Laura at February 11, 2005 12:05 PM (ptOpl)

23 Ironically, this post is about as dumb as Churchill's comments. And it might actually be in worse taste. What this demonstrates is that the deaths of thousands on 9/11 has become nothing more to you than a cheap tool to make (poor) political points. This is right on par with the repeated links to beheading videos. And still not a word about the Lancet report. Nice humanity dude. Wake up.

Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at February 12, 2005 03:25 PM (Mt2dO)

24 A pissed off American Indian, go figure.

Posted by: Carl Kingsley at February 13, 2005 09:18 AM (FN+Ee)

25 Why is everyone so mad at Churchill?

Posted by: Collin Baber at February 14, 2005 07:38 PM (FV4oJ)

26 Churchill is NOT an American indian, all of the Native American tribes have refused to claim the wannabe asshole! He's just another piece of self propelled garbage we refer to lovingly as "White Trash"! Churchill is a Muckraker, much like Jesse Jackson and others who make a living hollering "Racism", and he'll always have the Berkleyites and assholes like that to feel sorry for him. Fortunately though, even the MSM will soon tune him out, the State of Colorado will do away with his program at CU . . and he'll be just another dipshit preaching his sorry mantra on some street corner. Calm down . . . BUT, Rusty . . the 'Toon was a little bit of Bad Taste . . You've done better . .

Posted by: large at February 14, 2005 07:56 PM (VRK2g)

27 Peter von nostril's blog must be without partipants again.

Posted by: greyrooster at February 17, 2005 01:50 AM (CBNGy)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Another Bogus Sgrena Threat

Yawn. The reliability of statements made at the Ansar.ws bulletin board has now dropped to nearly zero. Our in house experts have serious doubts as to the authenticity of this latest statement. Giuliana Sgrena was taken hostage last week. From day one our analysts have predicted Sgrena would be released unharmed and live to write about her 'ordeal'. This is the second time a group calling itself the Muhahadin Brigades has threatened to kill Sgrena if Italy did not withraw its troops. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 03:16 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 233 words, total size 2 kb.

Great Point

dKos:

Here's the deal -- a war is worth fighting if you would sacrifice everything you hold dear to fight it.

John Hawkins:

"Oh, well if you're not willing to charge into a burning building to try to put out a fire, then you shouldn't expect a fireman to do it. Same goes for cops. How can you ask a policeman to risk his life enforcing the law if you're not willing to grab a shotgun, kick in the door of a crackhouse, and start making citizens arrests?"

Posted by: Rusty at 08:34 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 89 words, total size 1 kb.

February 09, 2005

Soldier's Uniform Hangs From Noose In Front Of Home

The sign reads "your tax dollars at work"

WARNING: Graphic reminder of why this pisses me off. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 08:16 PM | Comments (32) | Add Comment
Post contains 171 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Even if you disagree with the message (whatever it may be), you cannot go on someone's property and deface their home. I am sure that if someone went around taking down American Flags, they would not be met with a lot of cheers. Whats next...tearing down blogs?

Posted by: Jim at February 09, 2005 08:44 PM (Ufp/9)

2 Jim is absolutely right. Encroaching on another's property to tear down their political statement is wrong. Which is why I would stand in the street on public property and throw rocks through the window. And if someone did that to me because of my flag or my blog? Well, that's why man invented the .300 WinMag.

Posted by: Eric at February 09, 2005 09:00 PM (lK7Sh)

3 gonna have to agree with eric on this one.

Posted by: samUwell at February 09, 2005 09:52 PM (9aOBY)

4 "can you.....this in 1943?" in that year and the a couple before you(usa)had mass rallies against joining ww2.and you had pro hitler meetings,freedom of speech thats what its all about!

Posted by: steve at February 09, 2005 09:57 PM (6M7nL)

5 laws are made by man, justice is divine. from time to time the laws of men fail, and decent men, knowing what is just will render said justice. sometimes that means looking the other way, sometimes throwing rocks. sometimes trespassing. i'm glad it's gone.

Posted by: mlah at February 10, 2005 12:49 AM (/ryLN)

6 Erik I totally agree. If I was that homeowner I would invest in a shotgun and sit by my window waiting for people like you to do just that.

Posted by: Jim at February 10, 2005 01:29 AM (Ufp/9)

7 There are certain circumstances whereby entering into someone else's property without first gaining permission is SOCIALLY acceptable, if not morally required. I think this is one of those circumstances. Otherwise, fires, child abuse, violent crimes...if we apply the otherwise tidy rule of not crossing the property line, well then, we can just kiss all of it goodbye because we no longer have a society, but utter barbarism. The "politically correct" stuff has just gone too far. Society is nothing more or less than how and what individual humans do and allow to be done within their environments. Everyone props up a dividing line and does whatever they can without social obligation to certain standards of decency, then that's the day we no longer have decency or much of a society remaining, but anarchy. This effigy is purely awful and quite threatening to a standard of public decency. It should not be allowed to remain on public view. The "homeowner" wants to display the effigy in their living room, fine, but once it's placed on public display and as predominantly as it is here, it becomes an issue of signage and takes on a whole other dimension as to consideration for community and social standards.

Posted by: -S- at February 10, 2005 06:08 AM (KWx69)

8 Just another "progressive" supporting the troops. I bet they like Pelosi and Reid.

Posted by: Rod Stanton at February 10, 2005 06:52 AM (gVJtb)

9 'Otherwise, fires, child abuse, violent crimes...' Interestingly, those are about preventing harm. Here you want to enter in order to do harm. tsk tsk.

Posted by: actus at February 10, 2005 07:31 AM (5Lqt9)

10 Actually, in 1943 it was illegal to support the NAZIS. And by 'illegal' I mean they threw you into jail. The difference between 1940 and 1940 was that in 1940 we were debating whether or not to enter the war, but by 1943 we were in the war. Once you are the fighting begins then peace no longer exists. Now we are in what Hobbes called 'a state of war'. In a state of war the normal rules of society cease to exist. Hence, normally society does not sanction killing another human being, but in war we do. And we are not only sanctioning the killing of foreigners, but of our fellow citizens. When we send people to war we know that some will die. Now,think about it. What is the higher liberty? Which 'right' is the most important--life or speech? If we can kill our fellow citizens in war then surely we can legitimately stifle some speech. This has ALWAYS been the case. In WWII we had actual censors. Further, even if censorship is not merited under the present circumstances surely this effigy constitutes 'fighting words' which are not Constitutionally protected. If it were my neighbor I would go over there and take it down, then if I were arrested I'd argue that the effigy was both an assault and constituted fighting words in my defense.

Posted by: Rusty at February 10, 2005 08:07 AM (JQjhA)

11 It's a statement, and if made to cause discusion on the matter, well then it works perfectly doesn't it

) Bob The Gallery Blogger Nb. Nice blog btw. will be checking back

)

Posted by: Gallery Blogger at February 10, 2005 08:27 AM (YJYHE)

12 Did anyone interview the person who put it up? Frankly, there are better ways of making a political statement. That's pretty tasteless, imo.

Posted by: Venom at February 10, 2005 08:51 AM (dbxVM)

13 If you think that's bad, we had an issue here in TX, where this homeowner was told to take the American Flag down she had displayed on her house! Seems it was against the homeowner's association rules that you could only fly the flag on special occasions, like Memorial Day, Flag Day, 4th of July etc. Reason being that it "detracted from the property value" and that it could open the door to any other kind of flag being displayed, such as a Confederate Flag, Swastika, whatever. The resident took it to court, and won, and is allowed to display her flag 24/7.

Posted by: Laura at February 10, 2005 09:13 AM (ptOpl)

14 Some of you have avoided the question though...even if the political statement is in bad taste and you don't agree with it...How can you justify stifling freedom of speech when you are so quick to denounce islamic countries for doing the same thing? Although it wasn't the government that removed the "sign", it speaks a lot about our society. The people who went to that house and took away the homeowner's amendment rights are no different from the iranian officials who arrested bloggers for making political statements. Period.

Posted by: Jim at February 10, 2005 11:01 AM (Ufp/9)

15 Jim, I understand what you're trying to say, but freedom of speech is generally contextualized within the society its uttered. Its why porn is outlawed in some counties, why "artists" like Istvan Kantor are barred from some institutions, and why Holocaust deniers are charged with promoting hatred. Freedom of speech has its limits, and those limits are generally derived from the communities we live in. Does the guy have a right to voice his opposition to the war in Iraq? Absolutely. Does he have to do it in a tasteless manner? Most would say not. Outside of Hallowe'en, hanging an effigee by a noose outside of your home for everyone to see is generally not what society considers proper.

Posted by: Venom at February 10, 2005 11:48 AM (dbxVM)

16 One thing that bothers me about the left's freedom of speech "movement" is that the First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech". Did Congress demand that this moron take down this display? No. How is this person's freedom of speech being violated? It would seem that the left has the right to put up displays like this and to compare Bush to Hitler but I don't have the right to take down an offensive display or call people like Janeane Garafolo an idiot.

Posted by: Rob at February 10, 2005 11:56 AM (K5g5u)

17 If men are willing to stand by in the face of evil then evil triumphs. Sorry I'd be happy to tear it down. The same way I'd tear down a sign on someone's lawn that proclaimed Kill the Niggers, Spicks, etc, etc. Its not freedom of expression, if it is so is the other sign. Choose.

Posted by: TJ Jackson at February 10, 2005 12:06 PM (zitVZ)

18 Hobbes claimed that there is only a state of war when there is no government influence to control human violence. This is true on the World level, the UN being an ineffective governing system that has been successfully undermined and without strong enforcement agencies to govern individual states, but, on the national level, this is not the case. The U.S. government still effectively controls our individual violent actions. So, while taking each nation to be an individual in the world there is a state of war, there is not a person-to-person state of war within the United States. Therefore, it is up to the government to chose whether to enforce this particular point of the law or to leave it unregulated. While I believe hanging effigies of soldiers is wrong or right, it is not my duty to govern, but to be governed, and it is the duty of federal, state, and local officials to rule for or against this type of behavior. So, the correct response would be to call your honorable neighborhood police officer to come and take it down.

Posted by: Johnny at February 10, 2005 12:20 PM (cp2CN)

19 Venom, point taken. Yet, I don't think this is similar to "kill the ni**ers" either. I guess it all depends on how you intrepet the sign. I DOUBT that the homeowners were in some way promoting the effigy of dead US soldiers as seen in falluja. As I said before, I am not sure what message these people were trying to make but I would have definately done it differently.

Posted by: Jim at February 10, 2005 01:13 PM (p6jU/)

20 It was illegal in 1942. Daschel Hammond held a rally against WW2 in Frisco in 42 stating that we should be fighting the Capitalists and on the side of the National Soci---ist Labor Party. FDR had him thrown in jail. Folks in NoCal have been anti-America for almost a century. But at least FDR threw the leaders in jail - even the writer of a great detective book the MALTESE FALCON.

Posted by: Rod Stanton at February 10, 2005 05:46 PM (gVJtb)

21 Hey, Jim, you lost all credibility with me when you couldn't spell my name even though it was right in front of your leftard face. As to your point about the shotgun, well, that's why I carry a Colt .357. I'll fire back.

Posted by: Eric at February 10, 2005 06:40 PM (lK7Sh)

22 just cause it was illegal to be anti ww2,it didn't stop them did it.and it shouldn't stop you now.even if your in jail it dosn't meen you were wrong.and in no way did i compare bush to hitler.WARS ARE NOT WON,THEY ARE LOST

Posted by: steve at February 10, 2005 09:42 PM (6M7nL)

23 Eric, Erik, Piece of Shit, whatever... You have no credibilty with me so frankly I don't give a fuck how you want your name to be spelled. Considering you would be standing in the middle of the street with no covering, I don't think you would get a shot off so it doesn't matter what you carrying.

Posted by: Jim at February 11, 2005 06:20 AM (Ufp/9)

24 The guy who tore down the soldier committed an act of vandalism. He should be prosecuted for violating the law.

Posted by: Libertarian Girl at February 11, 2005 10:35 AM (NigL1)

25 "If men are willing to stand by in the face of evil than evil triuphs"- one could hazard a guess to say that the homeowner feel what has happened to our troops is just that- evil. PS- remeber- look down the barrel when you clean your guns guys- more air for me.

Posted by: Max at February 11, 2005 03:27 PM (HFKAk)

26 Shit they interviewed a couple who lives a few doors down from the display, and they are saying the kid that took the display down, should be arrested for stealing and trepassing!

Posted by: Laura at February 12, 2005 09:15 AM (ptOpl)

27 Seems to me that while a lot of folks are spouting first amendment freedoms, we seem to have forgotten about the patriot act that allows law enforcement to arrest folks that are suspected of being involved in terrorism. Shit, if I was law enforcement, I would find it real easy to suspect them of terrorism, arrest their dumb asses and rifle thru everything in their house to make sure.

Posted by: Phil at February 14, 2005 05:44 PM (VtK1S)

28 Its a good thing you ARE NOT law enforcement.

Posted by: Jim at February 15, 2005 04:07 AM (WciPa)

29 Phil has a good point, and I'd like to suggest to any law enforcement officers out there that people who place crap like this on the exterior of their house probably have a cache of Islamist bomb-assembly instructions hidden on their person. Specifically, in their colon. DEEP in their colon; I mean, like, elbow deep or deeper.

Posted by: RussfromWinterset at February 15, 2005 06:39 PM (+7VNs)

30 As an Army wife I am ashamed of these people who placed the uniform (that my husband proudly wears)on display like this. My daughters are proud of their father and a sight like this would upset the hell out of them.

Posted by: Tera at February 16, 2005 07:06 PM (bAk8l)

31 Wish that family would move to my neighborhood. Running out of fuel for our weekly bombfire.

Posted by: greyrooster at February 17, 2005 01:48 AM (CBNGy)

32 MAX: Where be da getto porch monkey? He be in dem white collar fields. Maybe he be caughtee.

Posted by: greyrooster at February 19, 2005 04:01 AM (CBNGy)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Target Rich Environment

Posted by: Rusty at 08:05 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 6 words, total size 1 kb.

Hakeem Olajuwon Named in al Qaeda Funding Probe

AP:

A mosque established and funded by basketball star Hakeem Olajuwon gave more than $80,000 to charities the government later determined to be fronts for the terror groups al-Qaida and Hamas, according to financial records obtained by The Associated Press.
Olajuwon told the AP he had not known of any links to terrorism when the donations were made, prior to the government's crackdown on the groups, and would not have given the money if he had known

h/t: Venom

Moral of the story: Don't give to an Islamic charity, you never know where it's going to end up.

Tamar Tesler has some more thoughts at the Counterterrorism blog.

Others: Blogs of War, TBTN

Posted by: Rusty at 07:31 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 127 words, total size 1 kb.

Iranian Blogger's Ordeal

"Do you accept the charges?" the interrogator asked.
"What charges?"
"That you have written things in your Web log that go against the Islamic system and that encourage people to topple the system," he said. "You are inviting corrupt American liberalism to rule Iran."

Read the whole thing. I especially like how that guard asks for suggestions on improving jail conditions after she had been held for 36 days. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 12:48 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 207 words, total size 2 kb.

1 wow, that was something to read... made me apreciate being in the west. definately the strangest most cognatively dissonent ending to this little drama played out by the islamofascists was the questionare on how to improve things during a prisoners horrible terrifiying ordeal, im thinking a mint chocolate on the pillow after interogations might be nice.....

Posted by: rumcrook at February 09, 2005 01:35 PM (KqxgH)

2 Dude, are you back or checking in from Peru??

Posted by: Rusty at February 09, 2005 01:39 PM (JQjhA)

3 Shows how religion is used to enslave people. The Koran and Allah are being misused by these religious fanatics, who want to keep women in a subservient role. It will hold back progress in Iran and any other country that uses such tactics. Shame and dishonour on them. I salute this brave woman and wish her well. Publicize this and show how tyrannical these so-called religious people are.

Posted by: LML at February 09, 2005 06:31 PM (Hl5bb)

4 Yes religion is used to enslave people, then again it was religion that caused the downfall of slavery. So 'religion' actually is not to blame. Just as 'religion' was not to blame for the Thuggies but a PARTICULAR religion was. There is, however, a PARTICULAR religion to blame here. One that has a core doctrine of the non-seperation of Church and state and the establishment of religious law. Unlike another PARTICULAR religion in my mind which takes as a core doctrine the inherent seperation of church and state.....

Posted by: Rusty at February 09, 2005 06:57 PM (JQjhA)

5 Since I have an AP class at 7 AM, this item in the paper sure woke me up for the day. Question is: Is she still being watched, and how can she have her ordeal published in foreign papers while still in an oppressive country?

Posted by: Cecile at February 09, 2005 09:32 PM (JyBAZ)

6 "Yes religion is used to enslave people, then again it was religion that caused the downfall of slavery." Rusty nice arguement, but faltering on the fact that religion is the one single tool used for anyone who wants power ... from the time of shamans in cavemen days to the present Holy See. No difference just now there is money involved. Best to use George carlins 10 commandments then no one would argue. As too the whole issue of summary arrests and detainments with assistance from local authorities, this is nothing new to us ... we have been doing it for a long time. If you guys have some time you should read up about one US Ambassador Comer and the mis-adventure that resulted when he was posted to the embassy in Ankara, Turkey. The issue here with arrests of the general population for offences considered to be counter-administration, well if that person ever gets too out of control they have an excuse at a later time to say "Today a known counter revolutionary was arrested and punished once again for crimes against the people". As to voicing these issues, the United States does not voice sides so as not to intervene in internal policy. When you break the law, you know the punishment, its going to sound harsh but thats the fact. You dont go to China and stand in front of Chairman Mao's Tomb and burn a Little Red Book while renouncing the regime, that is unless you want to be re-educated and then turned into a government show piece after coming back in the fold. Sometimes the best thing is not to rock the boat, or if you must rock the boat you do it from outside the country until it is safe enough inside the country.

Posted by: Salamander at February 10, 2005 10:56 AM (W2YA6)

7 Oh, goody! I always wanted my own Fatwa! Cecile has a point: how did this article come to be in the LA Times?

Posted by: jenniebee at February 10, 2005 01:22 PM (Jr40s)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Al Qaeda Operatives Arrested in Iraq

Note that it was the Iraqis who caught these Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi aides with the aid of the local population. Zarqawi's organization, previously known as Tawhid and Jihad, is now al Qaeda in Iraq. Zarqawi's terrorist group is behind many of the beheading murders in Iraq. Yesterday another Zarqawi aid was arrested in Tikrit on suspicion of being involved in beheadings. Very good news indeed. Via the Reliapundit this article: more...

Posted by: Rusty at 12:26 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 484 words, total size 3 kb.

Prof. Joseph Woolcock Responds to Student's Allegations

Prof. Joseph Woolcock was accused by Kuwaiti student Ahmad al-Qloushi of ordering him to seek psychological counseling for his pro-American views.

Professor Woolcock responded to the accusation by dropping a comment in this post written at The Jawa Report by Gordon. After doing an initial IP search and contacting him, Prof. Woolcock confirmed that he had left the comment and had sent the same as a press release to the various MSM outlets. Ok, so we're not exactly the MSM---but I guess we'll do in a pinch! Here is what he says in his defense: more...

Posted by: Rusty at 10:36 AM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 1227 words, total size 8 kb.

1 I didn't cross post this to my site. So let me use this comment section to issue an apology. Politically speaking, Prof. Woolcock may be an ass But I am aghast to learn that he was an unnecessarily harassed ass. Thanks for the detailed research, Rusty. You're not the MSM (yet), but you are showing that bloggers are concerned with getting it right.

Posted by: Gordon at February 09, 2005 12:38 PM (dqTOU)

2 " ...students have the tendency to think that we really give a rat's ass what their political beliefs are. We don't.... We rarely think of you at all." Ooh, that's definitely gonna leave a mark!

Posted by: TC@LeatherPenguin at February 09, 2005 12:46 PM (kiH79)

3 Man, I thought the "The reason I give so many students an F is because there is no lower grade to give" remark was the money shot myself.....

Posted by: Rusty at February 09, 2005 12:54 PM (JQjhA)

4 While I didnt write on this topic I did read around a bunch. The student blew that crap out of proportion. The good thing is we had some real prof's in the sphere who graded his lame paper and gave it an F too. I'd be behind the professor on this one even if he was a pinko commie. "The reason I give so many students an F is because there is no lower grade to give." *snicker*

Posted by: Digger at February 09, 2005 12:57 PM (c2i02)

5 hah! you musta been typing while I was

Posted by: Digger at February 09, 2005 12:58 PM (c2i02)

6 After class a student accused me of not going to the White House because I was a liberal Democrat. "If your man Bill Clinton were in the White House I bet you'd go," she said. Either I'm doing my job way too well and disguising my political beliefs or this student was just psycho. Or the idea of Universities as Impregnable Halls of Liberalism Where No Conservative Dare Tread is so entrenched in the minds of conservatives that some of them are... ok, yeah, they're just psycho.

Posted by: jenniebee at February 09, 2005 01:14 PM (JBPdX)

7 Dr. Rusty, I disagree that professors don't let their personal feelings about a student influence their grade. I agree that YOU do not, but in any course that is not a math or hard science, there is an element of subjectivity in grading any assignment. While we have some checks on this, in the end, the student that the professor wants to give an A, will get an A. This is unlikely in an intro class of 160, but very likely in an upper level or graduate course of 15 students. I also think that the converse of that doesn't work - because a student that earns a poor grade may challenge it, we don't give F's to those we 'want' to. They have to earn it. I'll give the A based upon work ethic and effort if they only got a high B, but a 70.001 is still a C, even for slackers. You're right - I don't care if my students are left or right in their views either. Many profs do care, but they don't use it against them. My Communist teacher gave me an A, even though I was clear in my conservative capitalist beliefs.

Posted by: Hammertime at February 09, 2005 01:45 PM (cFg3z)

8 Attending a prestigious DC university--aren't they all?--in the '60s, there were certainly profs who cared about students' politics. I recall one year, my last, in which some profs would flunk you if you didn't attend an anti-war demo and other's would flunk you if you did. Fair, balance, and psychotic.

Posted by: John at February 09, 2005 02:45 PM (IuAUA)

9 Rusty, have you ever tried to give a "G" on a paper, etc .. just to see what would happen? And, yes, it was the money shot.

Posted by: carin at February 09, 2005 02:49 PM (1lEvk)

10 Sweet way to end the post with a subversive Office Space reference.

Posted by: Leopold Stotch at February 09, 2005 05:45 PM (ws3tS)

11 This isn't about me and my dreams about doing nothing...it's about all of us.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at February 09, 2005 06:40 PM (JQjhA)

12 Oh, and great comments every one else. But seriously, my experience is that Profs don't really care about your political views when it comes down to grading. Maybe they can't always hide their biases when teaching--we're only human--but grading is another matter. Look, I'm sure it happens occasionally, I'm just saying that as a matter of common practice I don't think it's that widespread. I will admit, though, that an atmosphere of hostility can be created wherein more conservative or libertarian minded students feel they can't speak up or feel excluded. That is another matter altogether.

Posted by: Rusty at February 09, 2005 07:01 PM (JQjhA)

13 As adjunct faculty I would tend to agree with you about the students political views in relation to grades earned. I never grade papers with the studentÂ’s political views in mind. I grade papers based on whether the student did the work correctly or not. While I donÂ’t teach history or politics I do encourage spirited debate on how our country should be run. I enjoy listening to all points of view, even if I disagree with them. Thanks for getting the facts of this encounter out to us so we can draw a more reasoned conclusion.

Posted by: Azygos at February 09, 2005 08:12 PM (CxIc8)

14 Plenty of professors do let their political biases dictate the grades they give, so the fact that many don't is irrelevant to the specific case at hand. According to the student, the question was: 'Dye and Zeigler contend that the constitution of the United States was not Â“ordained and establishedÂ” by Â“the peopleÂ” as we have so often been led to believe. They contend instead that it was written by a small educated and wealthy elite in America who representative of powerful economic and political interests. Analyze the US constitution (original document), and show how its formulation excluded majority of the people living in America at that time, and how it was dominated by AmericaÂ’s elite interest.' That is not a question at all, but a very narrow, Marxist description of the motives of the Founding Fathers. The student is being invited to agree with it. He did address the thesis, but disagreed with it. Woolcock doesn't address that, in his response. Instead he makes a vague description of the events surrounding the student's selection of topic and a discussion with him that ensued. Why no specifics as to what was wrong with the student's paper? Further, this is all one is supposed to have to know to pass an introductory course in Political Science? That beggars belief. There's more to this than Woolcock is saying.

Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan at February 10, 2005 09:49 AM (0y+ms)

15 I taught accounting at several universities for 25+ years. I can only speak for myself, but when I disliked a student for any reason I always made sure to give them the benefit of the doubt in grading. Usually the benefit of the doubt was still insufficient to raise their grade above an F, although it did happen on the odd occasion. During the '70s and '80s, I taught at two universities with a significant number of Arab and Persian students in the College of Business. Nearly every semester I had at least one of these students protesting a grade I gave them. I even had one of them show up at my home demanding I change his grade. I always remember how stubborn they were that they were right and I was wrong. Fortunately, I never allowed them to retain their graded work so it was easy to demonstrate to the Head, Dean, or Committee why they received the grade they did.

Posted by: Laddy at February 10, 2005 11:47 AM (AhrnS)

16 Woodcock has been accused of various students as being abusive and political. I tend to take the student's position. If he were my professor I'd be in front of the dean with my lawyer. Or in front of the prof with my wild rotweiller.

Posted by: TJ Jackson at February 10, 2005 12:21 PM (zitVZ)

17 Money Shot? This is a porno site? "I gave him an F because there is no lower grade to give", is a very old teacher gag line. Must be a new batch of students on line. As for Woolcock; his arrogance comes through strong. He protests his lack of concern for students political viewpoint too much. His chosen text is a giveaway.

Posted by: bbwolfe at February 10, 2005 01:44 PM (TpiAD)

18 Hey- what is all the fuss about Woolcock? It is so stupid that people keep talking about this guy. Just fire the bastard and hire a competent instructor and move on- get this behind you. Obviously WoolCOCK screwed up and should find a new job where he can be dishonest- like a used car salesman! That way he can sleep at night selling a bunch of shit to immigrants who don't know any better...

Posted by: The End at March 02, 2005 08:43 PM (vigIV)

19 excellent, that was really well explained and helpful

casinos: casino tropez

Posted by: casinos: casino tropez at March 03, 2005 04:06 AM (MKULh)

20 Ok, I will sign your blog. I really love your site.

Casinos en ligne

Posted by: Casinos en ligne at March 03, 2005 04:06 AM (MXVwZ)

21 government Grants

Posted by: Government Grants at April 18, 2005 12:16 PM (VlO1c)

22 Great stuff. Keep up the good work. Great content and ideas. Ron of Best online casinos

Posted by: Best Online Casinos at May 09, 2005 02:19 AM (tDU2m)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

145kb generated in CPU 0.1029, elapsed 0.3412 seconds.
134 queries taking 0.2641 seconds, 469 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 424756
Files: 472
Bytes: 3.4G
CPU Time: 625:14
Queries: 44952914

Content

Posts: 5690
Comments: 76607

Feeds

February 13, 2005

February 12, 2005

February 11, 2005

February 10, 2005

February 09, 2005

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds