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

June 12, 2006

Filipina Celeb - Natasha Asbury

Natasha is a half-Filipina/half-American substitute schoolteacher and fashion model. And, based on my in-depth investigation, she is not a terrorist. More here.

Posted by: cbjohnson at 04:13 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 32 words, total size 1 kb.

How to Identify a Terrorist...

For your safety and the safety of others, it is important to be able to quickly identify potential terrorist threats that you may encounter in your daily life.

This person, for example, may or may not be a terrorist:

more...

Posted by: Kos_Irhabi at 03:11 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 75 words, total size 1 kb.

Hamas Shows Incompetence, Ends Ceasefire

Friday, 7 (or 8, depending on the source) Palestinian civilians were killed in an explosion on a Gaza beach. Hamas claims that Israeli artillery shells killed them and used the deaths as an excuse to end the fragile ceasefire with Israel.

Israel is now telling its side of the story:

An Israel Defense Forces intelligence officer has confirmed that the explosion that killed eight Palestinians on Friday, was caused by a stockpile of Hamas explosives.
"Shortly after we stopped defensive firing at Hamas rocket launch pads which were deployed behind Palestinian human shields, members of Hamas scrambled to fire more rockets at our positions," said Col. M. "We have eyes on every meter of Gaza, from the sky, from the ground and from the sea. One of their rocket tripods collapsed inadvertently setting off an explosion of a stockpile of Qassam rockets. The Palestinians killed their own children. And this was not the first time."
Hamas terrorists fired rockets and mortar bombs from a crowded Gaza beach at southern Israel. Some of the rockets fell near the Israel city of Ashkelon. Some 17 rockets were fired between Saturday and Sunday morning. A man at a school in the Israel town of Sderot was wounded, Israel officials said.
Israel Maj.-Gen. Yoav Galant said today that the Israel Defense Forces has additional evidence that it wasn't Israel artillery that hit the beach in Gaza. Galant, who commands Israel's southern command, said Israel stopped firing 15 minutes before the explosion. It's all on secure videotape from both sides of the conflict. Israel Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said he was sorry about the deaths, which included three children.

Hamas knows what happened, they know their own incompetent terrorists killed their own people. And they still use the incident as an excuse to end the ceasefire. Why? Hamas is in a nasty fight with Fatah over control of the PA government, and the best way to maintain support is to find an external enemy to bring the faithful back into the fold. Wag the dog, if you will.

Roll the video, Galant.

Posted by: cbjohnson at 01:06 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 357 words, total size 2 kb.

Yearly Kos Report : From the fingers of babes...

Did you know that if you mix equal parts home video camera and personal computer hardware, you can make virtual napalm?

Oh, yes. One can produce all sorts of explosive propaganda using simple household items--if one is so inclined.

For those interested in the Yearly Kos show, you're probably aware that Hot Air has been ALL OVER it from the get-go. Blogging on the Kossacks' Saturday night red-meat-o-rama, Hot Air's AllahPundit had this to say about the Kossacks' amateur video work: more...

Posted by: Kos_Irhabi at 12:54 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 318 words, total size 2 kb.

June 11, 2006

Just Good 'Ol Boys, Never Meanin' No Harm

The Pentagon releases the names of the three terrorists who took a long drop at the end of a short rope.

Read the whole article. It's kinda funny. It painstakingly outlines the egregious hand-wringing going on about this non-event.

It's simple. We are in a war. Club Gitmo is a POW camp. A POW camp is where Prisoners Of War are held. All the ridiculous carping about people being held without trial is just that. Ridiculous.

It should also be noted that many detainees released from Gitmo have cheerfully returned to their chosen avocation of trying to kill as many Americans as possible.

If you really want to read a howler, check out this editorial from a month ago in the Yemen Observer. You know Yemen, that country that sets the standards for humane incarceration in the world. That's like Tony Soprano lecturing Jack Bauer that he should stop killing people.

Muslihoon says "shut it down." Tongue firmly in cheek, of course.

Posted by: Vinnie at 11:19 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 178 words, total size 1 kb.

Editorial Note

I just wanted to reiterate that Rusty is away for most of the summer.

If you have something blogging-related, feel free to email me, the address is at the top of the page under "Contact."

Or you can email one of the other co-bloggers as well.

You're still free to email Rusty, of course, but, in his own words:

I'll try to
read e-mails from the road, but I may be gone for some time.

Please note that nobody has access to the Jawa Report blogroll but Rusty. So that's one request that I can't handle.

Posted by: Vinnie at 05:55 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 100 words, total size 1 kb.

Yearly Kos : A Revolution in the Making?

This was it. The netroots, coming together. The Kossacks, mad as hell and not gonna take it anymore. A brave new political world being born. The left-wing blogosphere, planning their real-world revolution. You could feel the energy, even as far away as LGF and Malkin.

Just out of curiosity, I decided to pop in and have a look. Knowing that this was touted as the making of a brave new political world, and considering I was in the neighborhood, I figured I might as well check it out.

I suppose I was expecting something similar to DailyKos.com, except audible, and with chicken sandwiches, perhaps accompanied with a whiff of incense...
more...

Posted by: Kos_Irhabi at 05:38 PM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 1158 words, total size 7 kb.

1 You're a brave person to wade into that. I need your email for the Contact page. Or, AN email for the Contact page. ;-)

Posted by: Vinnie Editor In Chief Pro Tempore at June 11, 2006 05:53 PM (/qy9A)

2 Very interesting. I really don't get this "re-framing" of arguments. Especially when so many of them are unclear as to exactly what they want. Take abortion for example. Many people don't accept it as moral, but are cautiously supportive if restrictions are applied. So is "re-framing" it supposed to coerce more people into not only being tolerant, but to accepting it as moral? Has government school indoctrination not been as successful as they hoped?

Posted by: Oyster at June 11, 2006 06:30 PM (YudAC)

3 One of the panelists politely explained that it'd probably be counterproductive to beat up the conservative co-worker with a baseball bat. He explained that reacting angrily and/or violently only plays to stereotypes about the left. Not to mention, she'd find that there are more conservatives at her office than Leftwing moonbats-- and many of them are actually armed. Yes, there are THOUSANDS of us conservatives out here. It's not just the eeeeeevil corporations they have to defeat.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 11, 2006 06:33 PM (8e/V4)

4 >>>>they're starting to be taken seriously by the Democrat Party establishment. Which means the Democrat party is going to be pulled further to the Left, and away from the mainstream. The only way for the Democrats to win will be for the GOP to muck things up so bad that it's own base won't turn up at the polls.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 11, 2006 06:36 PM (8e/V4)

5 What is interesting is that there is no possiblity of a conservative equivalent, because the conservative side of the voting spectrum is not permitted to join in the process, which is top down, distributed talking points, and staying "on message." The idea that voters might contribute to the "message" or that voters might have (gasp) diverse opinions is anathema to the right. Unable to play the same game, conservatives have nothing left to do except whine that it's not an important game to play and that the Kossacks' vast array of opinion on every political subject is somehow evidence that they aren't thinking for themselves. Perhaps a conservative can explain why, in a free marketplace of ideas, DKos is five or six times more popular than the most popular conservative blog, and the left blogosphere in general is about five times as popular as the right. No one is paying people to visit DKos or Eschaton or AmericaBlog, and it is no more difficult to go there than it is to any other site. What is it about a free discussion with few limits that makes the liberal blogs so much more successful than conservative blogs? Does anyone here really think that the power of the left blogosphere has already peaked and that it is all downhill from here? I do not. I believe that it is barely out of the starting blocks, and doing something for the first time ever might take a little time to sort out, but it is definitely not going away soon, and in a few years the impact will be more than just a joke to the right.

Posted by: Repack Rider at June 11, 2006 08:04 PM (uHrmF)

6 Repack Rider: The left blogosphere is five times as popular as the right? Where do you get that idea? There are FAR more right-leaning blogs than left ones. The blogosphere was created by the right, because the left already controlled all of the MSM and academia. DKos is more popular by a factor of 5x of any conservative blog? Do you have figures on that? I disagree that the left blogosphere is barely out of the starting blocks; they may not have peaked, but they aren't going much higher. What passes for discourse on DKos and DU is nothing but vitriolic hate, and mainstream America and the center will never respond to that. Just view the red county/blue county chart of the last two elections to see where most of America lies. The fact that Moulitsas is what, 0-20, on endorsing candidates shows that the vast importance you place on lefty blogs is highly over-rated. And Air America, flagship network of the left, has ratings that can barely be measured. The only reason DKos has a high hit count is because it is one of very few lefty blogs and is being kowtowed by the Democrat party. And considering how out of the mainstream most of the opinions there are (such as Moulitsas' "screw them" comment) ... see ya' in 2008. It'll be interesting.

Posted by: rokbassist at June 11, 2006 08:43 PM (hmks6)

7 vitriolic hate ?? are those damn Quakers on the rampage again ?

Posted by: john ryan at June 11, 2006 08:52 PM (TcoRJ)

8 Perhaps a conservative can explain why, in a free marketplace of ideas, DKos is five or six times more popular than the most popular conservative blog, Good for DKos. Perhaps a liberal can explain in a free election system, liberal candidates are overwhelmingly likely to lose....and lose badly. And why Democrats no longer look forward to success at the ballot box, but "moral victories" by means of losing but not as badly as before. Good for the kossacks....they participate in a bulletin board discussion in large numbers. Folks on the right are busy working during the day and actually winning elections. Given the choice, I'll take electoral success over internet discussion largesse. But that's just me. Get someone to win an election running on the themes that the kossacks love - gay marriage, socialized health care, tax hikes (all reformatted as "equal rights, single payer and rolling back", of course....it's the narrative that counts, I'm told) and it won't be taken as quite the joke that it is, now. Or, win an election in general. Zero for twenty is quite a record to behold.

Posted by: RW at June 11, 2006 08:52 PM (3XQmx)

9 "What is interesting is that there is no possiblity of a conservative equivalent, because the conservative side of the voting spectrum is not permitted to join in the process, which is top down, distributed talking points, and staying "on message." The idea that voters might contribute to the "message" or that voters might have (gasp) diverse opinions is anathema to the right." Speaking of distributed talking points, holy cow. I don't suppose you've ever heard of the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, National Review, the Weekly Standard, CPAC, GOPAC, the Young America's Foundation, or TownHall.com just to name some of the biggest places where ideas and policies have been debated and refined for years. Heck, you can see the process happen on nearly a daily basis on NRO's blog, The Corner. What you do not see is a legion of people marching to the beat of the same drum and eschewing differing ideas. It's funny that you mention the Kossack's vast array of opinions, insifar as they have one opinion about every subject and God help you should you differ from the doctrine. Ask Joe Lieberman about how having an opinion that differs from the Kossacks. How to explain the popularity of lefty blogs? I could come up with quite a few ideas, but none, I believe, that would convince you. You have the Kos playbook in your head and you're running it nearly perfectly.

Posted by: Jimmie at June 11, 2006 08:54 PM (4mZXF)

10 The quietness of the Kossacks was the first surprise of Yearly Kos. The second surprise was the degree of attention paid to 'mainstream' issues like the budget deficit, the trade deficit, economic growth and domestic energy policy. It's only a surprise if you judge the lefty blogs by their rhetoric, as opposed to their policy preferences. Most of the leading liberal bloggers -- Kos, Duncan Black, Josh Marshall, Digby -- are fierce rhetoreticians, but the policies they prefer put them on the "mainstream" or "moderate" end of the spectrum: they like balanced budgets, a health-care system similar to other capitalistic countries, and they were in favor of some military interventions but not Iraq II. A Mark Warner or, for that matter, an Al Gore (who is not a lefty by any means) fits the Kossack profile much better than a Cynthia McKinney or even a Barbara Boxer. (A similar example in the column-writing world is Paul Krugman, a moderate, pro-globalization economist who got a reputation as a shrieking lefty mostly for his tone, not his policy prescriptions.) Like the pro-gun, pro-Desert-Storm Howard Dean, they're what might be called "angry moderates." Also, I'm never really sure what the "0 for 20" thing is supposed to prove. For one thing, it's not even true (the "netroots" contributed to some Dem special election wins in Congress in 2004). For another thing, the whole point of backing longshots is that you usually lose. And the final point is that these groups are more or less where conservative groups were in the mid-'60s, when Democrats controlled everything -- and conservatives didn't get One of Their Own into power until 1980. I don't know if the netroots types have the patience to wait that long, but if you want to build a movement you have to be in it for the long haul.

Posted by: M.A. at June 11, 2006 09:34 PM (sJV6q)

11 Also, I'm never really sure what the "0 for 20" thing is supposed to prove. That the Lost Kos Kids are losers? Moulitsa's endorsement is the kiss of death. I go to DailyKos every time they lose an election. It's fascinating to see the "reality-based community" backslap each other on their "moral victories". lol! Yes, the Nutroots is truly a force to content with.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 11, 2006 10:29 PM (8e/V4)

12 That the Lost Kos Kids are losers? Moulitsa's endorsement is the kiss of death. Again, the only way to be sure of that would be to compare it to the record of a new conservative advocacy group, say in 1966 or something like that. They didn't do so great either when they started out. The test of the "netroots" as a movement is whether they can move things in their direction eventually, the way the conservative groups did -- but "eventually" doesn't mean "less than four years after the start of the movement from scratch." Also, you have to qualify the statement with two points: a) The Kossacks did, in fact, help two Democrats win special elections for Congress in 2004 (though that sure as heck didn't presage a Democratic victory in November), and b) Kos mostly endorses candidates who are considered longshots, and longshots usually lose. Again, conservative groups know that this is important even if you usually lose, because eventually you do win one and even when you lose, you help move things in your direction. (E.g. by sponsoring the primary challenge to Arlen Specter, conservative groups "lost," but helped put pressure on Specter to toe the party line. A similar thing could happen with the Lieberman challenge). I go to DailyKos every time they lose an election. It's fascinating to see the "reality-based community" backslap each other on their "moral victories". lol! You're seeing what you want to see. Kos's own posts for the last year or so have been pretty realistic about the Democrats' chances (he frequently throws cold water on the idea that they can take back Congres) and about chewing the Democrats out for specific losses. Again, the correct comparison of the liberal "netroots" is to the conservative movement in its mid-'60s infancy, after Goldwater's loss prompted conservatives to organize and take back the country at the grassroots level. The interesting thing will be that eventually people will be elected who sort of "grew up" politically with the liberal blogs, just as the '80s brought to power Republicans who had "grown up" with the new conserva-roots. Though I'm not sure who the netroots Reagan will turn out to be 15 years from now (maybe Brian Schweitzer).

Posted by: M.A. at June 11, 2006 11:22 PM (sJV6q)

13 I prefer to call a spade a spade. First off, the new election campaign contributon law was fought for fiercely and backed by George Soros and some other big money types. He knew at the time that the 527 loophole would be a reasult.I am not certain he leans toward socialism or communism, but Jane Fonda is number three [3] on the list of supporters and backers. Hillaey and a fellow who figured in the Clinton administration [for the life of me I can't remember his name right now] with Soros' backing started the Shadow Party and the "7" sisters. They also started their own 527's along with many others of the top socialist leaning money contributors and pretty much have the Democratic party by the short hairs. Back in the late 90's there was a "progressive" meeting in Chicago that discussed a long term goal of a candidate in the White House in 2008. It was on the DSA website along with the names of the members of the progressive Caucus members and officers. A reporter wrote a story about the relationship of the DSA and the Progressive Caucus. The whole issue was quietly put down. DSA redesigned their web site and stopped showing the progressive caucus as an affiliate. The Progressive Caucus then started its own web at a .gov site. ANSWER [behind the war protest marches], UPJ, NOIN, MoveOn.org [listed in order of ize are all umbrella groups for numerous Socialists and Communists groups who are either pro North KoreaP, Fidel Castro and the Venceremos Brigade, Communist China and Maoists or old Soviet type movements controlled by communists activists. All fall under the umbrella and/or influence of the old SWP and the newer WWP. MoveOn.org first realized the advantage of the internet and virtually exists through the internet. They have been very succesful in this venue. By the way Hillary and Al Gore are ideologically as alike as two peas in the same pod. Shje is anything but a moderate. But she adapts for votes. That ability may have hurt her tremendously with her far left cohorts who unlike Hillary, won't compromise principles for votes. Personally, I think she is one smart politician who whole heartedly had my vote for years. Then after 9/11 when Fonda and others crawled out of the woodwork like cock roaches, I began to look beneath the surface in popitics!! Some of the major players in the "progressive movement" were active in the 60's. They are now lawyers, writers, educators [God help us], are. and have gotten smarter since the 60's. They know progressive or leftist sounds better than Communist or Socialist. They simply changed what things were called. Found more palatable sounding terminology.They've bought themselves control of media sources. Enough said!

Posted by: devildog6771 at June 12, 2006 01:35 AM (VT3Uv)

14 M.A. - You say I was only surprised to hear mainstream issues discussed at Yearly Kos because I listen to the Kossacks' rhetoric instead of their true policy preferences. Are you saying that the Kossacks only PRETEND to be leftists fighting for fringe policies (e.g., socialized medicine, expanded wealth redistribution, impeaching the President, abandoning the new Iraqi government), while they're REALLY interested in instituting popular, centrist policies (promoting strong economic growth, controlling government spending, addressing trade imbalances, etc.)? If this is what you're saying, please explain how this could possibly be a winning political strategy. If it isn't what you're saying, please clarify.

Posted by: The All-Seeing Eye at June 12, 2006 02:38 AM (zj9j9)

15 Some of the talk here sounds grand and so noble, but "they like balanced budgets, a health-care system similar to other capitalistic countries,..." ? I think the the problem here lies with half truths. Let's complete some of those likes and wishes. When a "progressive" talks about balanced budgets how can one possibly disagree? But let them complete that thought with "they like balanced budgets by making sure the rich (which is a pretty widely interpreted term) pay, pay, pay." It's the equating of rich with greed, power grabbing, insensitivity and imperialism that they prattle on about on these blogs yet leave behind when they hold their netroots gatherings. What's also conveniently ignored is the massive power and wealth of their own benefactors and their willingness to be manipulated by the likes of Soros, Heinz, Turner and many others. All leftists. And they think we can't see the hypocrisy in that? And as I said earlier about abortion: it's not enough to be tolerant of abortion. Contrary to what they say, oh no, it's not tolerance they want. They want you to embrace it. They want a health care system similar to other capitalist countries? And how, praytell, will they avoid the pitfalls and that giant sucking sound they hear from the government run healthcare systems overseas? Where's the discussion on that? Are they taking the Hillary approach and telling others, "You're smart. You'll figure it out."? Or are they taking the John Kerry approach and saying "I would have done it too, but I would have done it better"? I could go on for ages with this stuff, but you get my drift.

Posted by: Oyster at June 12, 2006 05:47 AM (YudAC)

16 I should add that calling a position "fringe" when it's actually mainstream happens all the time on both sides. For example, liberals tend to talk as if opposing gay marriage is a fringe, crazy far-right position. But most Americans (and probably most people in Western capitalist democracies) oppose gay marriage. So while liberals may think it's wrong to oppose gay marriage, it can't be called a fringe position, any more than opposing the Iraq war is a fringe position. We tend, on both sides, to think that "mainstream" = "agrees with me."

Posted by: M.A. at June 12, 2006 07:11 AM (sJV6q)

17 If this is what you're saying, please explain how this could possibly be a winning political strategy. If it isn't what you're saying, please clarify. I don't know if it's a winning political strategy or not; a lot of the people who post on Kos -- particularly the reader diarists and commentators, who of course aren't controlled by the people who run the blog -- are basically mainstream Democratic types whose politics are closer to Al Gore than to any left-wing types. However, they feel very passionately that Bush is hurting America, so they tend to write angrily, passionately and with fervor. So they are inevitably typecast as the "angry left." I don't think any of them are angrier than, say, Michelle Malkin, but it's just inevitable that the MSM thinks liberals are "angry" but gives a free pass to righties; no use complaining about that. Is it good strategy to sound angry and advertise your hatred of the President? No. But most of these people aren't strategists; they're just people who read blogs and post comments. The online people who are "strategists" tend to be much calmer (Josh Marshall, Ezra Klein, the MyDD guys).

Posted by: M.A. at June 12, 2006 07:18 AM (sJV6q)

18 ...but it's just inevitable that the MSM thinks liberals are "angry" but gives a free pass to righties; no use complaining about that. One of the more hilarious delusions of the Left is that the MSM is against them. What a laugh. It does, however, show the depths that Leftists will go to "explain" their own failings - attacking the one establishment out there that is doing everything it can, including forgery, lies, and hyperbole, to support the Left yet the left blames them for their own bad reputation. You guys never cease to make me laugh. And that is probably not a good thing, for your sake. The first step in achieving some kind of parity would be to be taken seriously. You Lefties have a long way to go for that.

Posted by: mpt at June 12, 2006 09:01 AM (cz2aK)

19 "However, they feel very passionately that Bush is hurting America, so they tend to write angrily, passionately and with fervor. So they are inevitably typecast as the "angry left." I don't think any of them are angrier than, say, Michelle Malkin..." Umm, I have yet to see Michelle Malkin write a post filled with ALL CAPS, tons of profanity, and vile wishes against her opponents, followed by lots of exclamation points!!!!! In other words, most of the DKos'ers look like immature kids throwing a tantrum. Want to have a debate? I'm all for it. But once the profanity and name calling starts, as it does in nearly every Kos diary, I'm done ...

Posted by: rokbassist at June 12, 2006 01:59 PM (RxWwc)

20 Frankly, typecasting them as the "angry left" is not any different nor is it any more egregious than typecasting the right as "fascists". All that talk can be ignored or it seems more often it's just countered with further insult. So they don't like being called names? Whatever. In the words of the inimitable Dr. Rusty Shackleford, "Boo-freaking-hoo." Tell them to re-frame THAT one.

Posted by: Oyster at June 12, 2006 02:56 PM (ULAbo)

21 I couldn't get a rise out of them either, All Seeing Eye, and I was actively trying to get something explosive going.

Posted by: Kender at June 13, 2006 01:16 PM (CEBqE)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Don't Mess with Soccer

Lately bad news has reached the world. Islamists in the mold of the Taliban took over Mogadishu and are posed to take over the rest of Somalia. Too show how bad these people are one needs to look no further than the banning of the World Cup. more...

Posted by: Catholic at 12:09 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 109 words, total size 1 kb.

Filipina Celeb - Angel Locsin

Meet Angel Locsin, star of fantasy TV shows and commercials in the Philippines. She currently plays Darna, a Wonder Woman clone. More here.

Posted by: cbjohnson at 10:31 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 33 words, total size 1 kb.

Saving Soccer

Now, this will sound like blasphemy to my fellow NFL fans, but, having watched nearly five minutes of the World Cup soccer match between Sweden and Trinidad and Tobago...the world has a point. It makes much more sense to use the word "football" for "soccer" than it does to apply it to...American football. After all, the wimpiest NFL players are the ones who specialize in kicking the ball, and they are increasingly drawn from the ranks of soccer players - Europeans.

That said, soccer continues to prosper in America about as well as the metric system; that is to say, it has approximately the popularity of a fart in an elevator. What can be done? Must "futball" forever abandon the world's most profitable market and fanatical fan base?

No! A few simple changes should suffice to bring soccer up to at least the popularity of ice hockey. more...

Posted by: Bluto at 08:33 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 431 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Soccer is for nancy boys.

Posted by: Darth Vag at June 11, 2006 09:25 AM (+nlyI)

2 Paintgun? How about a riot gun with sandbag rounds. If you can take the hit, and make the goal you are the MAN. Paintballs would be the equivalent of flag football, which is the equivalent of soccer plus testosterone.

Posted by: Touchdown at June 11, 2006 09:33 AM (7N2cZ)

3 Bluto--as accurate as ever. Soccer is the fastest growing sport in America, and is one of the top two (if not #1) youth sports. With 14% of the population hispanic, and with a sizable new population of African, caribbean, and asian immigrants as well, combined with the youth numbers, soccer has a bright future. It is also one of the rare sports in which participation by women is almost as high as for men. Our women's national team is among the top in the world. Our men's team is ranked fifth. Now, as for tv--although I played soccer for 6 years as a kid, I still prefer watching football. Soccer is more fun to play, but doesn't translate well to the little screen. Go USA! We have a good host against the Czechs tomorrow.

Posted by: jd at June 11, 2006 09:55 AM (DQYHA)

4 No surprises here... JD is for soccer, Osama is for Jihad and the Democrats are for the gang-rape of America.

Posted by: Darth Vag at June 11, 2006 09:59 AM (+nlyI)

5 Touchdown: how about if we put half-inch ball bearings in the paint balls?

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at June 11, 2006 11:08 AM (RHG+K)

6 You forgot the worst rule in soccer: the offsides rule. This rule basically prohibits every kind of play other than the fruitless scrums you always see at the top of the box. Get rid of the rule, you open up the game to that most American play: the long bomb. Plus half-inch ball bearings of course.

Posted by: cobalt blue at June 11, 2006 11:47 AM (cJXpZ)

7 I'm here to defend soccer...and be mocked for doing so. I find most US sports boring, especially your drawn out football with constant time outs. I prepare for the imminent abuse.

Posted by: Jester at June 11, 2006 02:46 PM (TuAMG)

8 I kinda like soccer, especially womens'. Sweaty chicks with muscular legs and tight buns kinda turns me on.

Posted by: hondo at June 11, 2006 03:46 PM (MVgHp)

9 Shortening the field has been attempted. It was known as indoor soccer. It's another gimmick sport that field miserably. To eliminate the offsides rule would do the opposite of what you would like to occur. If you allow cherry-picking in the goal mouth, then you'll have to drop your defense back as well. Result: no long bombs and it then becomes even more of a defensive game. I still like watching football better but I agree that soccer is more fun to play. I might feel different if there were plenty of football leagues for anyone over the age of 13.

Posted by: slug at June 11, 2006 03:50 PM (soGSc)

10 Or the U.S. could field a competitive team. In addition, the MLS could possibly get some talent. Just a few suggestions.

Posted by: Budd at June 11, 2006 09:00 PM (OmmM3)

11 Hmmm...Americans like high-scoring games, that's true. But, then again, 6 points are given for a touchdown and 3 for a field goal. So, if they made goals in soccer 6 points each, too, would that help?

Posted by: Venom at June 12, 2006 11:16 AM (dbxVM)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Trio of Great Articles

I posted it over at my old blog because I haven't figured out the blockquote feature on MovableType yet. Here is the summary:
"So...40% of the badass 2004 Class at Terrorism High are dead.
The friggin' Guardian says we are winning the War on Terror.
And there might be a simple explanation for Haditha.
Overall, a pretty great evening here in the deepest, darkest province."

Click the link.

Update: I can do blockquotes!

And, finally, the first real report of the Marines' versions of Haditha. The stories told by the Iraqis can almost fit into the Marine version, if you leave out the civilians begging for their lives and being shot execution style, that is.

Wuterich's version contradicts that of the Iraqis, who described a massacre of men, women and children after a bomb killed a Marine. Haditha residents have said that innocent civilians were executed, that some begged for their lives before being shot and that children were killed indiscriminately.
Wuterich told his attorney in initial interviews over nearly 12 hours last week that the shootings were the unfortunate result of a methodical sweep for enemies in a firefight. Two attorneys for other Marines involved in the incident said Wuterich's account is consistent with those they had heard from their clients.

And Wuterich's account of how it happened:

A corporal with the unit leaned over to Wuterich and said he saw the shots coming from a specific house, and after a discussion with the platoon leader, they decided to clear the house, according to Wuterich's account.
...
A four-man team of Marines, including Wuterich, kicked in the door and found a series of empty rooms, noticing quickly that there was one room with a closed door and people rustling behind it, Puckett said. They then kicked in that door, tossed a fragmentation grenade into the room, and one Marine fired a series of "clearing rounds" through the dust and smoke, killing several people, Puckett said.
...
Although it was almost immediately apparent to the Marines that the people dead in the room were men, women and children -- most likely civilians -- they also noticed a back door ajar and believed that insurgents had slipped through to a house nearby, Puckett said. The Marines stealthily moved to the second house, kicking in the door, killing one man inside and then using a frag grenade and more gunfire to clear another room full of people, he said.

According to a source in the article, the Marines probably were following the Rules of Engagement if this account is true. Note that civilians in an open area were not harmed while chasing other suspects soon after the house-to-house hunt.

Posted by: cbjohnson at 04:58 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 455 words, total size 3 kb.

Neo-Nazi Idiots

From Spiegel via Doctor Zin:

In a guest editorial in the Bild am Sonntag newspaper, Knobloch wrote that neo-Nazis have stated their intentions of "showing their solidarity with the tyrants of Tehran" at the upcoming match between Iran and Angola in the eastern German town of Leipzig. The city is located in the state of Saxony, where the far-right, neo-Nazi National Democratic Party (NPD) won 10 percent of the vote in the last state parliamentary elections. Pockets of the state are a hotbed of xenophobia and it has also recently been the site of racist and anti-Semitic incidents at football matches. If a neo-Nazi presence is felt, Knobloch said, Germany could not just stand aside passively.

So, neo-Nazis hate Jews. The Iranian government hates Jews. Check.
Neo-Nazis mostly deny the Holocaust. The Iranian government denies the Holocaust. Check.
Neo-Nazis would like to install a Fascist government. Iran has a Fascist government. Check.
Neo-Nazis praise Hitler who tried to make nukes. Iranian President Ahmadinejad is oftened called a new Hitler and is trying to make nukes. Check.
Neo-Nazis are xenophobic, hate Middle Easterners and have been known to kill immigrants. Iran would love to take over the world (or at least destroy it) in the name of Islam. Oops.

Ok, I've got it now. Hating Jews is more important than your country being threatened by Islamism and nukes. I was just trying to work out that whole neo-Nazi hierarchy of values thing.

Posted by: cbjohnson at 02:36 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 245 words, total size 2 kb.

Fox News' O'Reilly Visits Gitmo, Prisoners Commit Suicide

Well, somebody had to say it. Certainly odd but, I believe, merely coincidental.

From CNN.com:

Three prisoners at the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have hanged themselves in what is being called a "planned event," the U.S. military has said.
They are the first confirmed deaths at the compound. Prisoners have attempted suicide in the past.
"Two Saudis and one Yemeni, each located in Camp 1, were found unresponsive and not breathing in their cells by guards," said a statement issued by Joint Task Force-Guantanamo on Saturday.

According to Rear Adm. Harry Harris, commander of Joint Task Force-Guantanamo, there is a mythical belief that Guantanamo would be shut down if three detainees died. As a result, the suicides were planned, not spontaneous.

Human rights advocates are eagerly jumping on the incident to bolster their claims that America is bad and President Bush is evil. Expect their assertions to be repeatedly emphasized by the generally complicit mainstream media.

My take on the situation is that fanatics killing themselves is not, at all, an unusual event. And, in all candor, I'd much rather fanatics commit suicide in a cell as opposed to a bus or restaurant crowded with innocents.

From Interested-Participant.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 01:25 AM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 214 words, total size 2 kb.

1 For the Liberals amongst us, don't forget these men would have willingly committed suicide amongst you, and your whole family in a shopping mall, with his explosive vest too -- their incarceration is one of the barriers that stops that happening. Don't let that stop you wasting a pack of Kleenex on the scum non-the-less...

Posted by: davec at June 11, 2006 01:44 AM (CcXvt)

2 Wouldn't it just be simpler if no one committed suicide? So what is the acid test for a fanatic? Is it simply having a room at the Gitmo Hotel? Put yourself in the same situation, held indefinitely, and tell us how long it would take for you to go "fanatic." Do you honestly believe that every one of the detainees there at Gitmo are guilty? Shall we ignore the evidence that people were sold as terrorists and incarcerated as enemy combatants with no hope of a fair trial? The only true innocents are the children. The rest of us are guilty by degrees. The only way to cleanse the stain of guilt is to stand up for justice and put down fearmongering.

Posted by: DCO at June 11, 2006 01:55 AM (ht8Md)

3 What I can't quite figure out is why the U.S. military is calling the suicides an "act of war." Huh?

Posted by: Michael Hampton at June 11, 2006 02:18 AM (FVbj6)

4 Oh look, it's the "they're just "oppressed brown people™", forced into terrorism by the evil U.S" defence. We all know before the U.S captured them, these two Saudi's and the Yemeni were growing Alfalfa, drinking tea and playing chess while flying kites in Afghanistan right? Two of the most radical, Jihadi nations, nationals were detained on the battlefield, and you want to sing Kum Ba Yah and give em a hug -- how totally predictable.

Posted by: davec at June 11, 2006 02:20 AM (CcXvt)

5 One of lesser know dangers of drug use is making statements of unbelievable foolishness to the media. For example: William Goodman from the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights told AFP news agency the men were "heroes for those of us who believe in basic American values of justice, fairness and democracy". http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5068606.stm

Posted by: Capp at June 11, 2006 02:29 AM (XgLFc)

6 Heroes? Oh they're just pissed because we don't believe anybody in Guantanamo should get a day in court. You can ignore them.

Posted by: Michael Hampton at June 11, 2006 02:49 AM (FVbj6)

7 Can't we issue them six feet of rope that no US military personnel are permitted to touch without gloves and an honor guard -- sort of like their Korans? And can't we call any attempt to interfere with the use of the rope to make a noose -- or to cut them down -- a crime against humanity? After a week or two we could close Gitmo because there would be no more prisonerst there -- wouldn't that make the libs and the "world community" orgasmicly happy?

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at June 11, 2006 06:09 AM (Jqugw)

8 Three today, who knows, maybe the rest tomorrow. Can we hope that the entire arab world will commit suicide by year's end?

Posted by: Ernie Oporto at June 11, 2006 06:50 AM (WvUov)

9 How dare they even try to keep these men from committing suicide? They have rights you know.[/sarcasm] DCO, you really ought to get out more often. Around 200 Gitmo detainees have been released. Some returned to the battle field and some of those were swept up again and returned to detainment. Sounds to me like we've got a lot of pretty guilty people still there. "Put yourself in the same situation, held indefinitely, and tell us how long it would take for you to go "fanatic."" Oh, please. You're using the base assumption that they're innocent. Something I don't know and neither do you. So all your righteous indignation is just empty rhetoric. How much "justice" do you think you'd get from these people you're so ready to stand up for?

Posted by: Oyster at June 11, 2006 07:05 AM (YudAC)

10 Well there willingness to commit suicide by strangulation certainly seems to diminish the fear the capital punishment is thought to have as a determent.

Posted by: john ryan at June 11, 2006 07:14 AM (TcoRJ)

11 Poor jihadis. They didn't get to kill any infidels in the process. No virgins for you!

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 11, 2006 07:58 AM (8e/V4)

12 DAVEC has spoken for me.

Posted by: greyrooster at June 11, 2006 08:03 AM (2/7WJ)

13 Yes John, capital punishment is not a deterrent........to terrorists - people who have been convinced that dying is the best thing that they can do. Quite different to a typical, garden variety so to speak murderer who usually doesn't hold such beliefs. So execution may not be a deterrent to terrorism, but it is an efficient means of disposal of such scum.

Posted by: Graeme at June 11, 2006 08:05 AM (QO12b)

14 Graeme your ideas are so much aligned with those of the terrorists, scum=infiels so it is OK to kill execute them. And as to the deterent effec of ca[ital punishmentt on preventing murder many people do not think that has ever been proved.

Posted by: john ryan at June 11, 2006 11:30 AM (TcoRJ)

15 Wow, john. That was a stretch, even for you.

Posted by: Oyster at June 11, 2006 11:46 AM (YudAC)

16 John: You act surprised that death would not be a determent for people who are willing to die for their cause, either by explosive vest or on the battlefield. However I am disappointed in the Guantanamo situation too, but most likely for different reasons than yourself. You see, I believe if anyone captured is not a member of the Taliban, that were captured not wearing a uniform that distinguished them from Civilians they should already have been tried and executed under a military tribuneral. Hiding amongst Civilians while conducting battle against our forces is not only cowardly, but leads to collateral damage to Civilians who are inevitably injured or killed while being used as shields by unidentifiable jihadi's, it also means our own soldiers are killed while taking measures to avoid wounding or killing Civilians, consider Sgt. Ben Morton who was killed in Mosul, who's team avoided using percussion grenades when entering Civilian homes because they can kill children there is no doubt using a percussion grenade would have saved his life. These are the people the Left wants to put on Trial and put in prison, so they can spend time in Jail while members of our own armed forces, and Civilians lay in their graves because of their cowardly method of warfare?

Posted by: davec at June 11, 2006 12:07 PM (CcXvt)

17 Its called " bleeding " not Geneva convention from our enemies viscous spiritual and psychological standpoint. They capture one of our men, and every time commit unbelievable and unspeakable surgery upon them. They keep them alive through the process to jeer and yell and deficate upon them. Not sometimes. Everytime. Then as is their ritualistic custom they mercifully behead them. " Bleeding " was very present in Viet Nam and many other tortures not only to our boys but to their own people. But the far left liberal press chooses not to cover it.Instead they magnify in the minds of the American people and the world; as Aljezera, the enemies rights to full Geneva convention privledges and justice as if they are United States citizens. Perhaps citizenship is what they will ask for these ruthless warlords next; anything is possible in their liberal agenda.

Posted by: william copenhaver at June 11, 2006 02:55 PM (ENoLU)

18 Maybe we can get O'Reilly to swing by there once a week. That way we can all get what we want.

Posted by: slug at June 11, 2006 03:56 PM (soGSc)

19 Oyster, I do get out now and then but thanks for the invite. I'm aware that some detainees have been released. I'm not surprised that some of them would be caught and returned to prison. What happened to justice for all? You don't think that some of them were just pissed off enought to go back to battle? What a way for us to recruit for the terrorists. As for innocence I'm glad I don't have to be the judge. We still have to uphold the standard of law and not let our emotions run away from us. Innocent until proven guilty. We become as bad as the terrorists if we let this standard slip. Psalms 23:4 will tell you to whom I look for justice.

Posted by: DCO at June 11, 2006 11:15 PM (ht8Md)

20 DCO, all your posturing and humanitarianism does not change the fact that this is not just an Elliot Ness contingent looking for hooch smugglers and handing them over to the government to try and incarcerate. It's a war. And I know that's hard for you to understand, but it's, let's just say, different.

Posted by: Oyster at June 12, 2006 06:15 AM (YudAC)

21 To bad it was only three. Put me in charge and there will be more.

Posted by: greyrooster at June 12, 2006 10:41 AM (fDZgg)

22 Greyrooster, I doubt anyone will ever put you in charge of anything.

Posted by: Callemasiseeum at June 12, 2006 02:33 PM (UHKaK)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

June 10, 2006

Introducing Me

I'm Chris, nice to meet you. I usually blog at Chris At Home, but will be posting primarily here. I am all about Filipinas, laughing at Jihadis and random interesting stuff out of Asia.

I am on an extended vacation from work, living in Mindano in the Philippines. (Job offers? Sure!) No, its not particularly dangerous here. No, I have never been kidnapped. Yes, there are a lot of scary Muslims here. Luckily, they don't read blogs or I would have to upgrade the training for my elite Filipina Security Squad.

Vanessa says hi!

Posted by: cbjohnson at 11:39 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 98 words, total size 1 kb.

Geography of Islamism

Over at my home blog "Geographic Travels with Catholicgauze" I like to take looks at geographic trends. One of the things I have taken a look at is at Islamism. After obtaining new information I am beginning to see a trend with radicalization. The source of the problem lies with our Â“allyÂ” Saudi Arabia. more...

Posted by: Catholic at 07:40 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 421 words, total size 3 kb.

1 The same koran, hadith and sira are applied to islam in all it's variations. Wahabbism is a red herring.

Posted by: heroyalwhyness at June 10, 2006 08:30 PM (MAPKL)

2 While all Muslims share the same texts the results are different. Muslims in Togo and Bulgaria do not behave in the same manner as their Saudi brethren. Egypt's Muslims have swung hard from nationalists to Islamists while still having the same texts. The difference came from outside forces that radicalized them.

Posted by: Catholicgauze at June 10, 2006 08:39 PM (A7S/s)

3 Contrary to what you have stated, Christians and Muslims have not been getting along in the Balkans. Even before the world wars, there was an unrelenting war on the christians. Many left that region to come to the US. The wars on Christians in the middle east is also apparent especially since the late 19th and all of the 20th centuries. The Arabs which settled in the US in that time frame were overwhelmingly Christian. And it still is this way. Muslim immigration only began in the late 60s. The muslim population in this country is maybe only 3 percent, but the Christian majorities of Arabs is well documented and well incorporated into American society. Since the PA took over Bethlehem, a town of nearly 85 percent Christian to Muslim, where tourists could go safely until the Oslo accords....the population of Christians has become a minority. They are persecuted by the Muslims everywhere. It isn't just a wahabbist thing. This has always been the case with Islam.

Posted by: Jauhara at June 10, 2006 09:04 PM (Z8kfp)

4 The Balkan Wars before World War I were based on nationalism and not religion. It was not a Christian versus Muslim thing but a Serb versus Croat versus Turk versus whomever. You are right on immigration. I even have a very good friend who is a Catholic Arab. However, while the Ottomans controlled they gave the Lebanese Christians many freedoms (not too many but still better than what Christians face today in the area) and France had oversight authority to on religious matters. The Lebanese and others came over when the Arabs replaced the Turks and Europeans. Arab extremism replaced Turkish moderation. (Note: The Saudi kingdom is the personification of Arab extremism on the matter of religion). The PA also had backing from the Saudis. Wahhabi and Wahhabi-aligned groups continue to feed anti-Jew and anti-Christian propaganda. I am not saying Christians and Muslims got along well everywhere (far from it) but the situation has become extremely worse with the exportation of Islamism.

Posted by: Catholicgauze at June 10, 2006 09:14 PM (A7S/s)

5 Some may wish to pick individual lice to spare the coiffure. Another method would be to use products such as RID to selectively eliminate most of the vermin (as w/wahabbism) with a broader selective process. A repeat application is almost always necessary. . .but the species can re-attack in the future. Lice has no known value - and as such, qualifies for permanent extinction. In 1400 years, Islam has been as parasitic as lice, providing no value to civilization. Eliminating wahabbism can only be a temporary solution to the permanent problem that is Islam. The next generation of fundamentalist muslim will simply identify the jihad under another pseudonym. The jihad will continue using the same IMMUTABLE texts - identical qur'an, hadith and sira - separating believer from non-believer into Dar ul Harb (house of war) vs. Dar ul Islam (house of Islam). The very same immutable texts used by all the sufis, salafi (salafiyya), wahhabists, kharijites, sunnis, shi'ites, ismailis, zaidis, fatimids, nizaris or nusayris/alawis etc. Taming Islam is a pipe dream.

Posted by: heroyalwhyness at June 11, 2006 06:55 AM (MAPKL)

6 Not even touching part of that argument... What I am merely saying is that Wahhabism has picked a fight with the West. Alawites haven't crashed planes into buildings and Sufis are not chopping off people's heads.

Posted by: Catholicgauze at June 11, 2006 10:23 AM (A7S/s)

7 "Sufism started out as a Shia movement, but over the past several hundred years, has almost disappeared from Shia Islam, and is now, mainly a Sunni movement. Hanbalis, Shafis, Malikis and Hanafis can all belong to different Sufi "tariqas" or "brotherhoods", as they are called. In fact, the Islamic brotherhood in Egypt, and Al Qaeda, are both Sufi based movements." www.globalsecurity.org/military/intro/islam-sufi.htm About sufi's not chopping off heads - perhaps not western heads . . . however, Sufi's indeed have a history just as bloody as any wahabbist . . . Andrew Bostom, editor of the outstanding new collection "The Legacy of Jihad", explores the jihad wars of the great 'Sufi' Tamerlane at The American Thinker: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4868 "It is true that he slaughtered all his enemies as thoroughly and conscientiously as the great Mongol, and the pyramids of human heads left behind him as a warning example tell their own tale." True too, Alawites have not flown planes into western buildings. Does that make them non-violent? Ask the Sunnis. Keep in mind that Assad rules Syria as a minority Alawite . Sunni Muslims account for about 80% and there was a 5% Christian minority. Assad ruled through terror as most Arab dictators do. His army and numerous secret police sections were staffed at the officer level by Alawites. The population was terrorized on the outside by his large army and on the inside by his terrorist secret police. An honest reflection on the historical effects on civiliaztion shows Islam gains submission through dawa, demographics & dhimmitude all reinforced through terrorism. Islamic doctrine must be completely rejected as it cannot be reformed. Patrick HenryÂ’s Â“ItÂ’s in the KoranÂ” lyrics posted below or with hyperlinks to contextualize some of the real events that inspired them. . .here: http://markhumphrys.com/in.the.koran.html#lyrics In our days of glory Now centuries past The kingdom of Islam Stood mighty and vast Then we failed our faith And watched your power grow But soon our greatness will return And this is how we know .. Because itÂ’s in the Koran ItÂ’s written in the Koran A world united under Allah is The future of man How could it not be so When most opposing us panic And surrender once a few of them have bled. WeÂ’re happy to torture WeÂ’re eager to rape We savor your last screams On videotape We massacre children We ransack a shrine And all our acts are sanctified By Suras 2 through 9 Because itÂ’s in the Koran ItÂ’s written in the Koran That we should fight and slay the infidels However we can WeÂ’ll blow ourselves to bits If that gives us an advantage Or weÂ’ll slit your throats while youÂ’re asleep in bed. Those heathens who scold us Are wasting their breath Over the millions weÂ’ve butchered And starved WeÂ’re men who would let girls Be trampled to death Rather than see them in public Unscarved So donÂ’t look for mercy When youÂ’re at our feet The justice weÂ’ll give you Is harsh and complete We danced in delight When your Twin Towers fell And youÂ’ll weep with your slaughtered As you burn with them in Hell Because itÂ’s in the Koran, ItÂ’s written in the Koran Your fate was settled long before This latest battle began WeÂ’ve found our holy purpose And weÂ’ll never abandon it As long as thereÂ’s a sinner to behead .. In other words we wonÂ’t rest Till everyone in the West Is a slave, a Muslim or dead. *** Full audio version of Â“ItÂ’s in the KoranÂ” at this link: http://www.patrickhenrysongs.com/

Posted by: heroyalwhyness at June 11, 2006 12:17 PM (MAPKL)

8 Sufis did have a violent past but so did Calvinist who got their start from the blood-thirsty Jean Calvin. Where are Sufi or Calvinist terrorist? Could it be because they are "tamed"? As for Syria is the violence there driven by religion or nationalism/clanism? The government couldn't care less if one is Christian or Muslim in the country (many Eastern Rite Catholics belong to the Baath party). Syria is an example of a corrupt clan supressing anyone who oppose them religious or not. You claim Islam cannot be reformed. Look at the Ottoman Turks, Sufis, and general progressive Muslims.

Posted by: Catholicgauze at June 11, 2006 02:19 PM (A7S/s)

9 It all depends on your interpretation of 'moderate'. Your 'moderates' do not challenge Islam's immutable texts. Dawa, dhimmitude & demographics are tools of the global jihad as well (Eurabia is a fine example). "As one Muslim leader told the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Izmir, Turkey, Giuseppe Bernardini: 'Thanks to your democratic laws, we will invade you. Thanks to our religious laws, we will dominate you.' " As long as there is Islam, the threat to civilization (as we know it) exists.

Posted by: heroyalwhyness at June 12, 2006 06:53 AM (MAPKL)

10 I think we should consider ignoring the bigot, herryoyalwhyness. She is comparing people and their spirituality to lice and suggesting extermination. She is seeing things in completely binary terms. In short, she is boring and cruel. Catholicgauze, save your talents for someone who is understanding, complex, tolerant of ambiguity, and most of all, kind. Simplistic world views are the hallmark of what we are talking about: the disgusting self justification for hatred and disgust for other human beings. I suggest you reserve your time for conversing with people who truly converse and share ideas and who are trying to learn something new.

Posted by: hisroyalwhyness at June 12, 2006 11:54 AM (E1H09)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Rusty Has Left the Building

I'm leaving for the summer. Welcome to our new Jawa contributors! more...

Posted by: Rusty at 05:57 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 273 words, total size 1 kb.

Ansar al Sunna Beheads 3 On Video [Images/Video]

The Army of Ansar al Sunnah has released a video showing the gruesome beheading murders of three Iraqi Ministry of the Interior soldiers. The Jawa Report has obtained a copy of the video. Links to graphic images from the video are posted below.

Contrary to popular media reports, this video has been available since June 7th, a day before news was released that the al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al Zarqawi was killed.

For instance, the AP claims the video was posted today and uses the video as evidence that the insurgency will not be stopped because of Zarqawi's death. However, I have personally known about the video for several days now, but due to time constraints, have not been able to post it.

Here is a portion of the AP report which is clearly misleading and based on a false set of facts. AP:

Insurgents signaled the fight is still on after Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's death, posting an Internet video Saturday showing the beheading of three alleged Shiite death squad members in revenge for killing Sunnis.
The video as grisly as any the al-Qaida in Iraq leader issued was clearly designed to quash hopes that the Sunni-dominated insurgency might change tactics by ending attacks on Shiite civilians and institutions, especially the police.

The AP report does, though, get the details of the video right: more...

Posted by: Rusty at 05:14 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 620 words, total size 4 kb.

1 The MSM is carrying water for our enemies. It can no longer be denied. They WANT us to become demoralized because they want us to withdraw from Iraq. They share common cause with terrorists.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 10, 2006 05:45 PM (8e/V4)

2 You have to hand it to the media, when the Zarkman was alive, they claimed the U.S was "hyping" how dangerous a terrorist he was, and he wasn't the mastermind the administration claimed, and now he's dead he's the global boogeyman with reach beyond the grave. according to msnbc.

Posted by: davec at June 10, 2006 07:51 PM (CcXvt)

3 Carlos if you look at the polls you will see at this point most Americans are no longer backing the war in Iraq. The MSM says what those who pay the freight, its advertisers want them to say. Americans have many choices on where to get their news, advertisers have many choices where to place their ads, MSM is the choice for most. Most Americans no longer believe in the mission that the government sent our soldiers on.

Posted by: john ryan at June 10, 2006 08:05 PM (TcoRJ)

4 yeah polls, like 'exit polls' john? lol guess we should ask President Kerry, right?

Posted by: davec at June 10, 2006 08:25 PM (CcXvt)

5 >>>Carlos if you look at the polls you will see at this point most Americans are no longer backing the war in Iraq my dear john ryan, and why do you suppose that is? Have you ever heard the expression "circular thinking?" You've just provided an excellent example. If American support for the war is down in the polls, you don't think it has anything to do with the fact that the MSM has been grinding the American people down with stunts like this for the last three years, do you? You've proven my case for me.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 10, 2006 10:41 PM (8e/V4)

6 Never seen a beheading before. These guys are animals. Not humans at all. There are MILLIONS more like them in the Arab world. How does one fight this kind of animalistic enemy? Time for the nukes to come out? Lake Iraq? We could join it by canal to Lake Afghanistan. Animals.

Posted by: JJ at June 11, 2006 11:10 AM (M4Fn3)

7 I don't swallow that crap about the polls. Pollaganda is just something that the MSM uses to see how well their propaganda has sunk in to the unsuspecting masses, and then they use the results to reinforce their propaganda. When polls results are published, they feign surprise. It's a stupid game, really.

Posted by: Cao at June 11, 2006 03:18 PM (RyucI)

8 That beheading was horific! So much for the religion of peace. I say bring back the Crusades and go medieval on these lunatics.

Posted by: Theway2k at June 11, 2006 04:05 PM (B3rTo)

9 Another reason to OUTLAW ISLAM. Its members are barbaric trash. Miles behind the civilized people of the world. The thing to remember is that their mothers and sisters begat more of these monsters. Their kids grow up to be just like them. Time for the big one??? Maybe.

Posted by: greyrooster at June 12, 2006 11:03 AM (fDZgg)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

June 09, 2006

Bias Most Foul (UPDATED)

Conservatives have long known that the so-called mainstream media have a liberal bias that has only recently been offset somewhat by the rise of talk radio and rightwing blogs.

Apparently, talking points were distributed in the past year or so instructing liberals to argue that, in fact, the MSM is completely objective, or that, if bias is present, it doesn't tilt to either left or right in the aggregate. It's all reminiscent of the Left's love affair with the monster Stalin, denying his true nature even as his score of murdered peasants surpassed even Hitler's grisly record of innocent victims. more...

Posted by: Bluto at 05:19 PM | Comments (70) | Add Comment
Post contains 659 words, total size 4 kb.

1 John Stossel.

Posted by: Michael Hampton at June 09, 2006 05:29 PM (FVbj6)

2 Umm... dude, Stossel's a libertarian, not a conservative.

Posted by: Evil Otto at June 09, 2006 05:37 PM (fcCt3)

3 This is a fantastic website that exposes the MSM slant on a daily basis. It's quite hilarious. But also unnerving. If really exposes just how far the MSM will go to carry the Democrats water for them. The Dems have at least a built-in 10-15 point handicap in any election because of it. http://newsbusters.org/

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 09, 2006 05:47 PM (8e/V4)

4 OK, I'll bite (btw, I'm only accepting argu endo that all the names you listed are liberal biased. A single incident cannot indicate a worldview, unless it is so egregious as to color an entire career.) Bill O'Reilly (surely no argument there) Stossel counts--although I agree he is libertarian conservative. John Gibson Lou Dobbs (on immigration, at least--extraordinarily biased towards conservatism) As for incidents: Initially, the media twisted Bush v. Gore as a 7-2 decision, when the actual decision was 5-4. It was very important to Republican hopes for legitimacy that it be spun as two Dem/liberal justices voted for bush, as opposed to the narrow 5-4 ruling it actually was. The misquote of Gore on Love Canal. He NEVER said I was the one who started it all. NEVER. One reporter heard it wrong. But it took the media three weeks to tell the truth. By then, it had damaged his campaign terribly. Ceci Connally has much to answer for. Also on Gore: he never said he invented the internet. NEVER said it. He said, accurately, that he played a critical role in funding its later development. The Repubs issued a press release, and the media swallowed it hook line and sinker. The truth never really made it out.

Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 08:10 PM (DQYHA)

5 Also--in Manufacturing Consent, Chomsky points out that the media treated the death of a Polish priest by the Jaruselski government as a MUCH MUCH bigger news story than the kidnapping, rape, maiming, and murder of FOUR AMERICAN NUNS by death squads linked to the Salvadoran government. They happened about the same time, but one could read the NYTimes and get 10 times the coverage of the priest. Why? Chomsky says the media has a conservative bias. He makes the same argument about the Indonesian killings in East Timor, the hundreds of thousands of peasants and Indians killed by the Guatemalan government, compared to the Pol Pot killings in Cambodia. While Pot killed a slightly higher percentage of the population of his country, the media coverage was ten times as great as the other two killings by US allies. Why? Conservative bias. Finally, there is documented evidence that many tv networks had consultants in 2002-3 who advised them not to cover the anti-war movement intensively, at the risk of losing viewers. This isn't quite a conservative bias, since they were only doing it for market share, not conservative bias directly, but it had a lot of the same effects.

Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 08:17 PM (DQYHA)

6 JD: when applied to you, the adjective "dull" is a triple entendre...

Posted by: Darth Vag at June 09, 2006 08:28 PM (+nlyI)

7 Yeah, them poor old conservatives ... all they got is the White House, Congress, 2/3 of the state houses and legislatures, all of Fox News, National Review, the neo-cons, several dozen think tanks, NewsMax, Rush Limbaugh, Cal Thomas, Hitchins, Sean Hannity, Joe Scarburough, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, How the hell can they ever hope to get their word out?

Posted by: glenn at June 09, 2006 08:39 PM (oxMjD)

8 Darth, I know that complex arguments are like kryptonite to you. My apologies. I will keep it simple and snappy for you in the future. Maybe I'll post twice--once for you, and once for everyone else.

Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 08:45 PM (DQYHA)

9 Tell it like it is Bluto. Glenn: We need out spoken heros to counteract the lies of the liberals.

Posted by: greyrooster at June 09, 2006 08:47 PM (4Ospb)

10 Yeah Bluto, tell it like you wish it were. Rooster: You're funny. That's exactly what liberals say about Al Franken and Keith Olbermann.

Posted by: glenn at June 09, 2006 08:50 PM (oxMjD)

11 That's not the point, Glenn. All the examples you cited are avowedly biased and conservative except for Fox News. The MSM is so insidious because they claim to be objective but are not. They would receive more respect if they reported the exact same stories but admitted their bias. JD, it's ironic that you put O'Reilly at the top of your "right-wing" list and then began an impassioned defense of Al Gore. Are you familiar with the incident in which Gore claimed that he had received a letter from a little girl who claimed that she didn't even have a desk in school because of over crowding? Many in the press did laugh at him, but guess who researched it and verified that Gore was telling the truth? If you guessed O'Reilly, you're right! Another point on O'Reilly: he supports gay adoption and favors more gun control. Hardly conservative positions.

Posted by: Thrill at June 09, 2006 09:06 PM (DYb4r)

12 O'Reilly isn't a journalist. He's -- if anything -- a commentator. He's SUPPOSED to offer opinions.

Posted by: Robert Crawford at June 09, 2006 09:08 PM (Gn9tM)

13 Where is that asshole Improbulus

Posted by: Garner at June 09, 2006 09:12 PM (Tf4se)

14 Thrill; True, and offered up to make the point that, far from being victims of media, conservative viewpoints have more than ample voices in their support. But here's the larger issue. What is referred to as the "bias of the MSM" irefers largely on the fact that it brings stories to the surface that are not generally flattering to George Bush in particular and Republicans in general, correct? Well, that's not a lack of objectivity; that is the job of the media. The powerful who have control over vast swaths of information-letting are held in check by a media that is SUPPOSED to be saying, "Uh, excuse me Mr. President, we think that statement is bullshit." You want a media that parrots the company line? Go pick up a 1960 copy of Pravda. George can't get a break? Big deal. He's the President, for Christ sake. Without a media that calls government officials on the rug, there's no point in having one. Sorry they're bashing you're guy, but that makes their efforts no less sincere. The White House has a press office and spokespeople. That's not the media's job. And if anybody comes out with this crap about the kid-glove treatment the Clinton's got from the media, I may scream. Because of 9/11, GW got a walk from the media the first three years of his Presidency like no other President has before or may ever get again. A WALK. Now the questions are finally being asked and it's such a shock to conservatives it apparently looks like bias.

Posted by: glenn at June 09, 2006 09:32 PM (oxMjD)

15 Free market, Bluto, people want to listen to what they like. If you don't like what the other citizens like to watch or listen to then change the channel. And of course if you don't like what they have to say then just censore them or ban them.

Posted by: john ryan at June 09, 2006 09:49 PM (TcoRJ)

16 >>>"NewsMax" LOL! Newsmax. That's true. And that's exactly how we know the MSM is the voice of the Democrat party. Because of the folks at Newsmax. That's all we're saying. Why do you keep denying it? Just stop it already! Tell the truth! The MSM carries water for the Democrat party 24/7.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 09, 2006 09:51 PM (8e/V4)

17 Glenn, nothing you just said is correct. The job of the media is to get the facts right. If they can't do that, they're not worth anything to anyone. And, as it happens, they can't. No only are they blatantly biased, not only do they present their bias as fact, but they are actively incompetent.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at June 09, 2006 10:41 PM (O0soJ)

18 Off topic , but:liberals want to level the playing field. EVERYONE will be equal. Heck, no more losers=no more winners. Make sure everyone gets their fair share by taking from those who earned more. Power to the people!!! Workers of the world, unite!!! /sarc off

Posted by: REMF at June 10, 2006 03:16 AM (7RMSi)

19 Liberals are always yammering about tolerence all except when it comes to conservatives and patriotic god fearing americans

Posted by: sandpiper at June 10, 2006 07:36 AM (08Fdo)

20 Bluto associating the "Left" (whomever that actually means) with Stalin makes about as much sense as doing the same with the "Right" and their love affair with Hitler. Also somewhat bad timing considering the recent release of seclassified documents showing how the "Right" protected Nazi war criminals after WWII including ADOLF EICHMANN http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/132509 Here is a link to the AZ Star

Posted by: john ryan at June 10, 2006 07:39 AM (TcoRJ)

21 Oh yeah! The AZ Star as an authority on what the Right did wrong during WWII.

Posted by: Darth Vag at June 10, 2006 08:05 AM (+nlyI)

22 Pixy Misa: The job of the media -- any media -- is to do a helluva lot more than report facts. They gotta FOLLOW UP with interpretations of what those facts mean so the public has a context to place events in. Just walking around repeating things that happened today isn't journalism or media. That's stenography. Use Zarquawis' death as an example. We can all pretty much agree he was killed by two five hundred pound bombs and will have to be replaced in Al Quaida by a new thug. That is the fact and it was reported as such in every media outlet from Air America to Matt Drudge. Now, what does that death mean? This is where the supposed "bias" comes in. Well, I've read where it's going to be the turning point in the war, that it means nothing in the grand scheme of things, that it exonerates Bush's execution of the war, that conservatives are using it as a diversion from their failures ... all from the same set of facts. People who feel the MSM is biased just don't like the interpretations. And they want them to admit these "biases" as bloggers Â— including Bluto Â—gladly admit theirs. The fact is industry-wide bias is a fallacy, reinforced by guys like Limbaugh who make a boatload of cash capitalizing on partisan frustration. Well, he too interprets and you happen to like his interpretations. Just don't walk around thinking you've found the "truth."

Posted by: glenn at June 10, 2006 08:10 AM (oxMjD)

23 Gore: Well, I certainly misspoke when I chose my words about the Internet. What I said to [CNN's] Wolf Blitzer, "I took the lead in the Congress in creating the Internet," was an awkward way of saying that. And I regret it, because yes it did appear to exaggerate my role. But fundamentally it was an effort to try to describe the leadership role that I did in fact take in getting the funding and also in evangelizing the idea and using the metaphor of an information superhighway to help congeal thought about what was possible. It is not after all an unknown phenomenon for politicians to tell the voters what they've done and, in the process, try to put the best face on it. Crap... I lost the url to this interview... I just recall it was in Time magazine.

Posted by: h0mi at June 10, 2006 08:20 AM (Ncvk6)

24 Glenn, What motivates simple-minded partisan hacks like yourself to come to the comments section of MY PET JAWA on a Saturday morning and post long-winded and dry rants? Why are you and the Markosites so obsessed with gang-raping America?

Posted by: Darth Vag at June 10, 2006 08:32 AM (+nlyI)

25 glenn, 90% of MSM journalists surveyed reported being Liberals. You're telling us to ignore what we can plainly see with our very own eyes in favor of your nonsensical diatribes about "Rush Limbaugh" and "Fox" news. Yes, Rush is partisan, but he admits it. And "Fox" is no more slanted right than all of the MSM is slanted left. But we just have "Fox" (and Newsmax!), while you have the rest of the MSM.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 10, 2006 08:51 AM (8e/V4)

26 I believe we have a breakthrough with Glenn here! Glenn, where does the MSM get off on presenting ANY INTERPRETATION??? They're supposed to be fair and impartial. They are supposed to JUST REPORT THE FACTS! Limbaugh is a commentator and Fox News hires commentators like O'Reilly, Fred Barnes, Juan Williams, and Alan Colmes. We expect interpretations from them because COMMENTATORS make COMMENTS. REPORTERS are supposed to REPORT. Yet nowadays, REPORTERS INTERPRET. I just think that the MSM should quit claiming to be impartial, that's all. It is insulting when they pretend to just be "reporting" when in fact they are deliberately trying to affect policy and voter attitudes with the perspective of their stories.

Posted by: Thrill at June 10, 2006 09:16 AM (DYb4r)

27 (because of the size constraints I'll have to break this up) It's not fair to equate some of the names submitted here as counterparts. The difference is reporters vs. commentators. You can't equate Rush Limbaugh with Dan Rather. The jobs are clearly defined as reporting or commentating. One is expected to show bias, actually claiming it, the other not. Let one person here tell me that the majority of "reporters" aren't politically left leaning and that their reporting isn't affected by that and I'll say you're fooling yourself, but not the rest of us. Is there bias on the right? Why yes! But most of the bias on the right comes from "commentators" as clearly shown by many of the names submitted here. Then Glenn throws Sean Hannity's name in there without mentioning that Alan Colmes is on the same TV show with him.

Posted by: Oyster at June 10, 2006 10:19 AM (YudAC)

28 (Well, Thrill already said it for me.) But to continue... "If you don't like what the other citizens like to watch or listen to then change the channel." Well, duh. But does this mean if one doesn't "like what the other citizens like to watch" they should change the channel and remain silent? "And of course if you don't like what they have to say then just censore them or ban them." Didn't you just imply that simply changing the channel was the appropriate measure? No one, I repeat, no one has suggested censoring or banning anyone. On the flip side would it be fair for me to say, "Of course if you don't like those who claim there is bias then just censore them or ban them." ? Certainly not. That would be just as ridiculous. This is a debate; not an attempt to censor anyone.

Posted by: Oyster at June 10, 2006 10:21 AM (YudAC)

29 Actually, it has always been, since the dawn of journalism, the job of journalists to not only report the facts, but to place them into a larger context. Imagine a news account of Sept 1st, 1939. Germany invades Poland. What does this mean for the US? For France, for Britain? What might it mean for Poland's Jews? How does it reflect the impact of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Treaty? What will Stalin do next? Speculative, yes. But clearly within the ambit of journalism. When Lippmann wrote his seminal text about journalism, he called for this as a core function of journalists. If all they do is report "Germany invaded Poland..." they are failing to do their duty.

Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 10:22 AM (DQYHA)

30 JC: What poll is this? What journalists were polled? Who sponsored the poll? What was the methodology? As far as "what you've got" in the way of media, see my first post. You're no victim. Thrill: I don't know where you get your understanding of reporting, but hard news is and always has been BASED upon analysis of facts, and stories based upon that analysis. You think news is supposed to be bland presentations of the obvious by coiffed talking heads, and only then turned over to "commentators" who get to say whatever they want about it, ala Fox News (though Fox "reporters" like Rita Cosby were egregious in handing out their opinions in the course of the build up to Iraq). C'mon. Classical reporters have always dug for the story and presented the facts they've assembled in the form of stories--interpretations if you will-- approved by editors. If public opinions are changed by the results, as they were in Korea, Vietnam and Watergate, maybe its because they got the broader understanding they needed to change them. Thank God for reporters who have the brains to analyze. You think right media--itself made up largely of commentators who according to you aren't bound by the same obligations as reporters -- present the facts? You may by fooling yourself.

Posted by: glenn at June 10, 2006 10:40 AM (oxMjD)

31 The problem with JD is he thinks his own countrymen are too stupid to know the significance of news events unless some liberal reporter is there "to place them into a larger context." This is quintessential liberal arrogance, and also, the reason for the downfall of the main-stream-media. Sorry Dumbass, but Americans are not as stupid as you imply.

Posted by: Darth Vag at June 10, 2006 10:47 AM (+nlyI)

32 jd, yes a certain amount of speculation and broader context is expected. There's a fine line between speculation and opinion. About your earlier comment: That advise "not to cover the anti-war movement intensively" was ignored by news outlets and they went apes**t over the anti-war people. That's a loose interpretation of this advice as "conservatism". While they were given "conservative" advice to help with the market share and ratings, their ratings consequently tanked by ignoring it. Even though, in Sheehan's instance, they tried very hard to selectively quote her pretending she didn't make some pretty wild statements. The way I see it is why is it considered conservatism to advise anyone that the majority of Americans, even those against the war, may not take kindly to being equated with the fringe whack-jobs like Code Pink, Sheehan, etc? Do you really think the advice came as simply as you state it without the "broader context"? Regardless of what one may think, too many people against this war don't like the coverage they get for their cause being represented by these kooks. If they wanted to cover it intensively they should have just stuck with the people with better credentials and credibility. It would certainly have made for a better argument to have only sane people on both sides of it. IMHO there is not a bit of conservatism in that advice. It was advise not to sensationalize.

Posted by: Oyster at June 10, 2006 10:51 AM (YudAC)

33 Advice/advise. Who cares? ;-) Even Microsoft Word didn't care.

Posted by: Oyster at June 10, 2006 10:56 AM (YudAC)

34 Actually, this was before Sheehan existed as a media figure (because her son was still alive). This was advice given in the lead in to the war. The reason that some in the anti-war movement feel that the coverage has been less than it should be is that compared to a similar point in the anti-Vietnam war movement, the numbers are STAGGERING. It took us years to have a real anti-war movement against vietnam, but this one was ready before the war began. The largest demonstrations in world history preceded the war (if you added everyone around the world). The coverage here was Pfft. Now, since then, as a majority of the populace in this country turned strongly against the war, the coverage has picked up. But it still isn't comparable to the coverage the anti-war movement got in the late 60s. I don't know why that is.

Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 10:59 AM (DQYHA)

35 You know how to argue Glenn, but you don't know how to make a point. You're just arguing for the sake of it now. I'll try to educate you. You are reduced to arguing semantics. ANYTIME reporters start offering their own OPINIONS or expectations or hopes to a news story, they have moved away from "reporting" and are now "editorializing". Yes, "reporting" a story would be just stating the facts as they occurred and nothing else. What's worse are the editors. They decide what stories get run and how to characterize them. Isn't it interesting that the attitude of the press is that Iraq is a quagmire and troops are dying and dying but it's going on? All the coverage is through that perspective because that's the story the editors want. They think it sells. Imagine if the press was the opposite and actually wanted the US to win the war. Instead of reporting on each soldier who died, maybe you'd hear something like this: "Yesterday, an Army NCO received a silver star for gallant actions against an enemy ambush...". If they were impartial, they would do both. The MSM is against the Iraq War, has been since the start, and the evidence is the coverage. They are trying to portray it as unwinnable so that we will pull out and a Republican administration will be harmed. Anyone who says otherwise is in the worst kind of denial.

Posted by: Thrill at June 10, 2006 11:01 AM (DYb4r)

36 "The problem with JD is he thinks his own countrymen are too stupid to know the significance of news events unless some liberal reporter is there 'to place them into a larger context.' "This is quintessential liberal arrogance, and also, the reason for the downfall of the main-stream-media. Sorry Dumbass, but Americans are not as stupid as you imply." DARTH, THIS IS HILARIOUS AND TRUE!

Posted by: Cletus Hogg at June 10, 2006 11:09 AM (+nlyI)

37 For someone hoping to educate, your lesson is a meandering one. Yes, I've heard the "guilt by omission" arguments a hundred times as proof of bias. And no, I cannot answer for the decisions of editors at every newspaper. However, I googled "Silver Star Iraq" and came up with 6,670,000 results, including articles on winners from the Boston Herald, the Arizona Republic, the Washington Post and several TV news stations. MSM enough for you? (Sigh) my original point was simple: people who don't want professional reporters to contextualize events either don't understand the purpose of the media or plain don't like the facts they see. I graduated with a double-major in journalism and political science. Though my career path took me to the corporate communications side, I had great respect for a professor who had also worked for the Chicago Trib and several other papers large and small. He said, "News is what people don't want you to know. The rest is PR." (I'm trying to imagine an Ernie Pyle or an Edward R. Murrow "reporting" in the fashion you think appropriate. They'd be as forgotten as the anchor who left our local news station.) Whether you agree or not, every example you pointed out can

Posted by: glenn at June 10, 2006 11:52 AM (oxMjD)

38 glenn, the fact that MSM journos are OVERWHELMINGLY Liberals is common knowledge to conservatives. Begin your education here, and then do your own research. It's all over the web: "A survey of his colleagues by a White House correspondent has confirmed that the Freedom Forum poll, showing 89 percent of Washington reporters voted for Clinton and 50 percent identify themselves as Democrats, but just four percent as Republicans, matches how they've voted since 1976." http://secure.mediaresearch.org/news/mediawatch/1996/mw19960601p8.html "In 1995, Kenneth Walsh, a reporter for U.S. News & World Report, polled 28 of his fellow White House correspondents from the four TV networks, the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, USA Today, Washington Post, Copley, Cox, Hearst, Knight-Ridder, plus Newsweek, Time and U.S. News & World Report, about their presidential voting patterns for his 1996 book "Feeding the Beast: The White House versus the Press." As reported in the MRC's June 1996 MediaWatch, Walsh counted 50 votes by White House correspondents for the Democratic entry compared to just seven for the Republican." http://secure.mediaresearch.org/news/MediaBiasBasics.html#HOW%20THE%20MEDIA%20VOTE

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 10, 2006 11:54 AM (8e/V4)

39 Glenn exemplifies the arrogance and cluelessness of journalists who self-identify as "objective"...

Posted by: Cletus Hogg at June 10, 2006 11:59 AM (+nlyI)

40 So..........you're a liberal guy and a journalist? Oh, THAT Liberal Media! That's precious that we have a card carrying leftwing would-be reporter instructing us that the biased MSM is a myth. Since we're discussing resumes here, I'm a private investigator, Glenn. My reports consist ONLY of the facts. I do not "interpret" or "contextualize" or offer my opinions because it would not be objective of me to do so. I would rightly lose my job if I only reported those events and statements that aided a favorable outcome to my cases while willfully ignoring or downplaying things that did not. This is what the MSM does, Glenn. They are portraying the Iraq War as Vietnam because they favor American defeat. Yes, when a soldier dies, it's a fact. Broadcasting that death is reporting it. It's when they try to use that soldier's death and keeping a running tally to somehow show that the war is wrong that they cross a line. Facts can be manipulated, and the MSM absolutely does for the benefit of the Democrats and (probably unwittingly) for our enemies. They have lost credibility and so the New Media has risen. Deal with it.

Posted by: Thrill at June 10, 2006 12:05 PM (DYb4r)

41 Glenn and JD are intellectually dishonest.

Posted by: Cletus Hogg at June 10, 2006 12:09 PM (+nlyI)

42 >>>>I graduated with a double-major in journalism and political science. lol! case close.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 10, 2006 12:09 PM (8e/V4)

43 >>>Glenn and JD are intellectually dishonest. Nah, jd is honest, but you gotta work hard for it.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 10, 2006 12:12 PM (8e/V4)

44 JC: I'll take a look. Thrill: >>>>My reports consist ONLY of the facts. I do not "interpret" or "contextualize" or offer my opinions because it would not be objective of me to do so. And that would make sense for a private investigator as you're job is that of a vendor, no insult intended. Journalism requires a different standard. Thrill, all I can tell you is keep looking to find the reporting that tell you what you need to hear. You'll learn little new. Your pre-conceived notions will be validated. Your fears of the MSM bogeyman will be confirmed. But what the hell do I care, that's your problem.

Posted by: glenn at June 10, 2006 12:15 PM (oxMjD)

45 Yes, journalists have a "different standard". And it is a lower standard that they adopted for themselves. Journalists swapped integrity and objectivity for political partisanship. The problem with your perspective that journalists should contextualize and interpret events is that you make the (surprisingly) foolish assumption that all journalists are fair minded, impartial, and disinterested all the time when we have seen that they are not. Your hero, Dan Rather comes to mind. This is my problem? I don't think so Boo-Boo. MSM newspaper subscriptions are falling and viewership of MSM news shows is worse every year. This is THEIR problem, not mine and they brought it on their own heads by abandoning objectivity.

Posted by: Thrill at June 10, 2006 12:26 PM (DYb4r)

46 Actually, cletus, while I may be a dumbass (does it make you feel better to include an epithet in your argument? It makes your case look weaker), I certainly don't think the American people are dumb. By contrast, you seem to think that if the media includes contextual reporting, that they will bedazzle and fool the people. Which of us thinks the people are stupid, again? Not I. I think that when journalists put facts in the wrong context (say, for example, the media that blithely accepted the case for war in 2002-3), many people are smart enough to reject that contextual reporting.

Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 12:51 PM (DQYHA)

47 Sure as human beings, journalists are just as likely to have personal biases and political leanings as those in any other profession. You and JC say they're all lefties. JC's even got research. OK, they're all lefties. You, however, are the type that equates a leftward/liberal leaning with an industry-wide loss of objectivity and the inability to report because of that. You don't point to any particular facts, but you make the claims. OK. At the same time, you're more than willing to give the right-wing press a pass because as so many on this blog like to state, right-wing commentators put their political leanings and their own personal biasesÃ‚Â on display. There's is an honest kind of bias, which is supposed to be some sort of defense I guess! So how is it again we get the objective story from the right?

Posted by: glenn at June 10, 2006 12:53 PM (oxMjD)

48 No Glenn, I do not think that liberal journalists shouldn't be allowed to report, it's just that I think that if they wish to "report" in a manner that allows them to "contextualize" and "interpret" according to their own worldview, they shouldn't pretend to be objective. Yes, The Jawa Report, the Rush Limbaugh Show, the O'Reilly Factor, and Sean Hannity are all subjective. They wish to influence events, opinions, and political outcomes and they apply available facts to support their conclusions. The only difference between them and the NY Times, WaPo, or CBS News is that they don't pretend to be anything else.

Posted by: Thrill at June 10, 2006 01:00 PM (DYb4r)

49 So then a complete lack of objectivity is OK, as long as you strike your colors?

Posted by: glenn at June 10, 2006 01:09 PM (oxMjD)

50 No, you can't have a TOTAL lack of objectivity or else you would lose your audience even faster than the MSM is now. Bill O'Reilly is actually my ideal of what a journalist should be. He identifies his viewpoint (traditionalist), acknowledges that his intention is to usher in a populist and reformist movement, debates issues, is willing to change his mind when he is shown to be wrong, asks good questions, researches events in person, and acts in the best interests of the community. He does consider himself to be fair and objective although many on the Left (you and yours) do not. I'm just sick of arrogant and egotistical journalists trying to tell me what to think while condescendingly telling me that they're not.

Posted by: Thrill at June 10, 2006 01:20 PM (DYb4r)

51 Sure, when O'Reilly's not telling people to shut up and pimping his books and radio programs, he makes some interesting cases. Well evidently a lack of objectivity doesnt' lose you an audience faster than the MSM as Rush can attest. But I always find it telling that people like yourself who harp on the MSM for their lack of objectivity (see Bluto's original challenge) are in reality harping on them for masking their subjectivity. So from all you've said, you don't want objectivity at all; you want revealed subjectivity. And that's not journalism. Journalism involves finding out things you want to know as well as those you don't. You're not supposed to be a customer getting what you've asked for, you're supposed to be a participant getting what you may need.

Posted by: glenn at June 10, 2006 01:42 PM (oxMjD)

52 Glenn, what I'm trying to say is that it all comes down to one word: credibility. Dan Rather lost his credibility and resigned shortly afterward because it appeared that CBS News attempted to sway a presidential election based on manufactured evidence. The entire MSM has a credibility problem because they have never come to terms with their own subjectivity. They only pretend that it doesn't exist and that's a mistake. The New Media DOES have credibility with a sizeable portion of the American public. As a liberal, you will no doubt claim that it's because "they're dumb" but you'd be wrong as usual. The credibility comes from shared values and an agreement that the objective is worth attaining. We trust the New Media because they speak for us, not down to us. I would like to say that it's been an honor to argue with you on this issue, Glenn, as you have such a distinguished background in the subject.

Posted by: Thrill at June 10, 2006 01:57 PM (DYb4r)

53 As to your point about being a "customer", I'm afraid it's unavoidable. Journalism is a business. Newspapers and news programs are in business to make a profit. Part of the reason they give their analysis is because just reporting dry facts is boring.

Posted by: Thrill at June 10, 2006 02:25 PM (DYb4r)

54 >>>>> The entire MSM has a credibility problem because they have never come to terms with their own subjectivity. Then you have nothing to worry about Thrill... they will either come around and declare their existing bias, at which point they will be welcomed as the subjective shill that New Media already is or they will finally be "outed" as liars, become irrelevant and fold. Either way, no more objective journalism will be found. Now there's a great thought.

Posted by: glenn at June 10, 2006 02:42 PM (oxMjD)

55 As if there ever was any. It is and always has been about profit and politics. You could lament that, Glenn, or you could be happy that Americans are now aware of it and thinking for themselves about the information they receive. The fact is that people do go to a variety of news outlets when they want to stay informed and they believe what they will based on their own knowledge and experience. I don't have a problem with that. An elitist bunch of journalists telling us how we should feel about the issues of the day that are judged for importance and chosen by these despotic editors with no discussion or disagreement has never sat right with me or any of the conservatives here.

Posted by: Thrill at June 10, 2006 02:51 PM (DYb4r)

56 I like Bluto's update. He admits he asked a question that he had no intention of being persuaded about. He has already decided the media is biased, always. Conclusions first, discussion second. Open minded hero to us all.

Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 03:53 PM (DQYHA)

57 And what's wrong with that? Aren't there certain opinions you won't be persuaded to change? Incidentally, this could be construed to mean that one who is open to be persuaded on anything or everything is one who is perpetually on the fence. If Bluto hasn't changed his mind it's because no one has given him a compelling enough argument. No one here has persuaded me to change my mind about our contemporary media. An argument about some conservative bias 20 years ago set against a background of what we see today is hardly inspiring. He invited others to try and persuade him. You didn't win the argument so that means Bluto had no intention of being persuaded?

Posted by: Oyster at June 10, 2006 05:21 PM (YudAC)

58 "Actually, this was before Sheehan existed as a media figure (because her son was still alive). This was advice given in the lead in to the war." Why should that make a difference? The media is pretty predictable in it's coverage. I think it's more telling that this advice was necessary. "The reason that some in the anti-war movement feel that the coverage has been less than it should be is that compared to a similar point in the anti-Vietnam war movement, the numbers are STAGGERING." What numbers? You're unclear. "It took us years to have a real anti-war movement against vietnam, but this one was ready before the war began. The largest demonstrations in world history preceded the war (if you added everyone around the world). The coverage here was Pfft." I'll answer this further in the next paragraph, but your choice of words is curious. "Now, since then, as a majority of the populace in this country turned strongly against the war, the coverage has picked up. But it still isn't comparable to the coverage the anti-war movement got in the late 60s. I don't know why that is." It's a matter of perception. Could it be that in the late sixties and early seventies we were relegated to speaking to each other in person, or that in the late sixties and early seventies our "letters to the editor" were more easily monitored? Also...no Internet. But it's not just that ...

Posted by: Oyster at June 10, 2006 05:37 PM (YudAC)

59 And what's wrong with that? Aren't there certain opinions you won't be persuaded to change? Not jd. lol! God love him.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 10, 2006 06:23 PM (8e/V4)

60 I think everyone holds views of varying strengths. Some things I am on the fence on. Some things it would take a lot of evidence to convince me I was wrong on. What is wrong with what Bluto said is that he said: name three people as conservative as these three. Give incidents comparable to these. And then says--trick question--there were NONE possible. It's not that big a deal. I've found from earlier discussions with Bluto that he believes a lot of very illogical things, and is absolutely unable to admit the smallest error.

Posted by: jd at June 10, 2006 09:04 PM (DQYHA)

61 "Statistically speaking, three examples indicate a trend;" Two points make a line though.

Posted by: actus at June 11, 2006 12:01 AM (nnhSu)

62 My 2 cents - how about something we can all agree on ... The MSM is incompetent, inept, shallow, self-grandizing, poorly researched ... I could go one without even touching "biased".

Posted by: hondo at June 11, 2006 06:54 AM (MVgHp)

63 Nice to see you back actus.

Posted by: hondo at June 11, 2006 06:55 AM (MVgHp)

64 Anyone who thinks Bluto is right about "three examples" having any statistical substance at all needs to take a basic stats course. Three examples has no statistical significance whatsoever, absent any further analysis. For example: I can find you three fundamentalist Christians who voted for Kerry. That would indicate what, statistically? Nada. In previous dialogues with the dread pundit, he has shown himself to be utterly at sea about statistics and polling. It's a record he has kept unblemished. More than three examples,let's say.

Posted by: jd at June 11, 2006 07:22 AM (DQYHA)

65 "Three examples has no statistical significance whatsoever, absent any further analysis." No dude. He said 'statistically speaking' That means its more than if he wasn't statistically speaking. You're wrong, because he was 'statistically speaking.'

Posted by: actus at June 11, 2006 02:56 PM (CqheE)

66 Huh? I don't understand you at all. If I say, "legally speaking, OJ faces no further criminal penalty." I'm clearly making a legal comment, about the nature of the law. "Sexually speaking, Roseanne Barr is repulsive." how do you read the clause "adverb speak-gerund"? It is traditional to think that someone is making a comment about that field of knowledge. Bluto's comment had no relevance in statistics, statistically speaking.

Posted by: jd at June 11, 2006 07:32 PM (DQYHA)

67 "Bluto's comment had no relevance in statistics, statistically speaking." I know. He's full of shit.

Posted by: actus at June 11, 2006 07:55 PM (nnhSu)

68 Don't you guys get it ... the Blutos of the world are the New Media: they don't have to be objective because they freely admit they're biased. The MSM however has to be objective, but that objectivity will always be measured by these guys' highly subjective standards. Heads I win, tails you lose. And of course if all else fails, use insulting epithets.

Posted by: glenn at June 12, 2006 12:21 PM (UHKaK)

69 Yup, 100% Glenn. It's like what a former RNC head finally admitted--that crying media bias was like criticizing the refs in NCAA basketball. Even if you believe the foul on your guy was legit, you still howl, in the hope that they'll second guess their treatment the next minute. And then, if the media does print something negative about a liberal, you say EVEN the liberal MSM thinks this is bad...if they print something good about a liberal, you can say, typical liberal media crap. It's perfect.

Posted by: jd at June 12, 2006 05:00 PM (aqTJB)

70 This isn't lost on them ...

Posted by: Glenn at June 12, 2006 06:29 PM (oxMjD)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Translate The Mumble

Traderrob's post has me, like you, asking "what did Zarqawi mumble?"

Feel free to submit your translation of Z-man's last words in the comments.

Posted by: Vinnie at 05:19 PM | Comments (72) | Add Comment
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.

Pete Stark's Conspiracy Theory

From the Washington Times (emphasis added):

Some Democrats, breaking ranks from their leadership, today said the death of terrorist leader Abu Musab Zarqawi in Iraq was a stunt to divert attention from an unpopular and hopeless war.
"This is just to cover Bush's [rear] so he doesn't have to answer" for Iraqi civilians being killed by the U.S. military and his own sagging poll numbers, said Rep. Pete Stark, California Democrat. "Iraq is still a mess -- get out."

It's depressing to think that a sitting member of Congress could make such an imbecilic statement. Stark has managed to slander both the President and the military in one breath. Previously, Stark likened the use of smart bombs in Baghdad at the beginning of the war to "...an act of extreme terrorism."

Stark implies a breathtaking conspiracy that would necessarily involve hundreds of public servants and thousands of military personnel. How else would the President be able to control the the timing of Zarqawi's death? And, like Jack Murtha, Stark has chosen to ignore the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" regarding allegations of Marines killing Iraqi civilians. Yes, Congressman Stark, that principle applies even to the men and women serving in our country's armed forces.

These chicken-with-its-head-cut-off reactions by Stark and other politicians from the Left indicate that, despite attempts to minimize the news, they realize that the killing of Zarqawi is an extremely significant event.

Stark's behavior cries out for official censure, at a minimum. Certainly the mainstream media would agree, if Stark were a Republican.

Via Stop the ACLU.

Cross-posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 04:15 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 273 words, total size 2 kb.

1 And there, ladies and gents, is the spin from the left about how to make Zarqawi's death a bad thing. I can't wait to hear what Mouth Murtha has to say about this...

Posted by: Jack's Smirking Revenge at June 09, 2006 04:34 PM (CtVG6)

2 Murtha could swaller a lightweight like yerself whole, even with a reg'lar mouth

Posted by: Party Pooper at June 09, 2006 05:06 PM (oxMjD)

3 Rep. (or should it be traitor) Stark and company wonder why they are no longer the party of the people. God help this nation should they regain power. "Islam must be destroyed." RayRio

Posted by: RayRio at June 09, 2006 05:15 PM (1CTkD)

4 PETE STARK is a pariniod he is competly out of his mind just like AL GORE is

Posted by: sandpiper at June 09, 2006 07:38 PM (XnXsx)

5 Dumbass comment, that's for sure. Altho he doesn't say there was a conspiracy theory. He seems to be referring to the Bush administration's publicizing of this event. I still think it was a dumb comment, but it's really not a conspiracy claim. Able Danger, now that's a conspiracy charge.

Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 08:50 PM (DQYHA)

6 Not Liking Bush= Anti American Not Suporting the war= Anti American Being open minded= Anti American Die anyone with a rational thought. We should trounce this fuckin world and anyone with a turbine

Posted by: Garner at June 09, 2006 09:21 PM (Tf4se)

7 You know Bluto when I read that article I never did see the word "stunt" in quotes anywhere. Are you sure that he said that it was a stunt ?

Posted by: john ryan at June 09, 2006 09:52 PM (TcoRJ)

8 Nothing is sweeter than the bleeting moonbats posting here. Poor babies. Schandenfreude is such a rush!! As for Stark, can we start questioning his patriotism yet??

Posted by: nuthin2seehere at June 10, 2006 02:21 AM (blNMI)

9 Embers from a burn barrel ignited a fire that spread to 15,000 acres Friday, burning at least one home and forcing people to evacuate residences along a 13-mile stretch of highway near the city of Nenana, Alaska, officials said............Halliburton? Evil little spandex garbed, right-winged, conspirators?????GLOBAL WARMING????????sarc off

Posted by: REMF at June 10, 2006 04:57 AM (7RMSi)

10 What is depressing isn't so much that there are idiots like Pete Stark, but that there is a constituency out there that sent him to Washington. Universal suffrage is a bad idea.

Posted by: ptg at June 10, 2006 06:45 AM (rVWj9)

11 During the Solomon Islands campaign in 1943, Admiral Isoroku YamamotoÂ’s Betty bomber was ambushed by a squadron of P-38 Lightning fighter aircraft over Bougainville. These aircraft were sent after intercepting a Japanese coded transmission, which revealed that Yamamoto would be on an inspection tour of forward air bases. All aboard the two Betty bombers were killed. Admiral YamamotoÂ’s death was a tragic blow to Japanese morale. A congressman from California spoke on the floor of the house the following day. McDermott Stark (D) CA said, Â“This was a well timed publicity stunt to raise the sagging poll numbers of the President.Â” Stark who plans to challenge the President in the 1944 New Hampshire primary said, Â“IÂ’m not going to have my patriotism questioned by anyoneÂ”. Â“Pearl Harbor was a staged event. The Explosions on the Arizona can be seen before any Japanese planes arrived. Stark also shouted Â“ Wingnut, Halaburton and Monkey BoyÂ” for reasons only he knows.

Posted by: B rad at June 10, 2006 07:11 AM (BJYNn)

12 "Universal suffrage is a bad idea" What? You mean you don't like how in America the candidate with better hair and other telegenic qualities usually wins?

Posted by: Thrill at June 10, 2006 09:37 AM (DYb4r)

13 Pete Stark is stark raving mad.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 10, 2006 01:12 PM (8e/V4)

14 Notice how now that Zarqawi is dead all the news agencies are calling him a "terrorist"?

Posted by: Oyster at June 10, 2006 06:11 PM (YudAC)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

203kb generated in CPU 0.1078, elapsed 0.2379 seconds.
136 queries taking 0.1923 seconds, 569 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 5678
Files: 23
Bytes: 62.4M
CPU Time: 6:38
Queries: 551481

Content

Posts: 5690
Comments: 76631

Feeds

June 12, 2006

June 11, 2006

June 10, 2006

June 09, 2006

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds