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

April 19, 2006

Wal-Mart Media Conference

(Bentonville, Arkansas) The 2nd Annual Wal-Mart Media Conference began yesterday with about seventy credentialed media representatives in attendance for a tour and various presentations by the company. They came from all across both the print and broadcast spectrum and included, among many, the New York Times, Washington Post, US News & World Report, The Guardian, Women's Wear Daily, ABC News, CNN and CBS News. Notably, two bloggers were also invited and were able to break away from their normal lives and travel to Arkansas. At their own expense, I might add.

Tom Forbes of Palousitics traveled from western Washington State to Bentonville and spent the first day of the conference attending presentations by Wal-Mart executives and taking notes. At intervals, Tom was able to post some of the more salient aspects of the information presented by the speakers.

One of the presentations pertained to Wal-Mart employee health care programs and how they are evolving. Tom provides a good overview and remarks that Wal-Mart's health care programs continue to improve and are quite competitive when compared to others in private industry.

In another session, Tom listened to Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee eloquently support Wal-Mart as an example of free market competition which benefits low-income customers through low prices and benefits communities by providing jobs and taxes.

The other blogger in attendance, Rob Port of Say Anything, spent his day among a group of elite media representatives and found himself more engaged by their attitudes and antics than the presentations of the convention. Rob indicates that most of the 'jounalists' exhibited strongly negative attitudes toward Wal-Mart and he wondered whether they were capable of reporting objectively. more...

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 06:12 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 577 words, total size 4 kb.

1 I need to make a correction to the above: Trusting the mainstream media to be objective ----- -------- is a mistake.

Posted by: Michael Hampton at April 19, 2006 07:40 AM (FVbj6)

2 Well, folks, since I'm working and living in the Russellville, Ar. area, I'm getting a lesson on Wal-Mart. To tell you the truth, I don't really like Wal-Mart, but every time I need something, that is where I go. Sorry, mom and pop, it's just more convenient to do all your shopping at Wal-Mart and be through in one trip. And in small towns, it serves as a gathering place for the locals. Even though I don't like Wal-Mart, I love it. What can I say?

Posted by: jesusland joe at April 19, 2006 09:48 AM (rUyw4)

3 >>>>Trusting the mainstream media to be objective ----- -------- is a mistake Unlike blog sites of course! Look, I love the whole concept of citizen journalism and many of the best sites are well-written and articulated from a stylistic standpoint, BUT I hold few higher than any other media source for their standards of objectivity. That's OK, because most are quite clear about their larger slants -- the honest ones at least. Blogging is a different model, in which less-than-objective opining is part and parcel.

Posted by: Glenn at April 19, 2006 10:21 AM (UHKaK)

4 Jesus Joe, you can sing this little jingle along with the elevator music as you're shopping at Walmart's: Undermine the economy ... whoa yeah .. Daylight come and I watchin' 'em grow Chink, chink, chink the cash register go ... Illegal alien move so slow ... Ah so, Ah so we come to take yo land Chink a chink a c'hang watch the register grow Chink a chink a c'hang, chink a chink a c'hong

Posted by: Last word Larry at April 19, 2006 11:20 AM (FCC6c)

5 Glenn - You lost me at "because most are quite clear about their larger slants." I haven't seen any of the MSM admit to being left-wing house organs with aggressive political agendas. And, in my estimation, publishing dozens of front page Abu Ghraib stories with pictures and not one Mohammad cartoon is not being objective. No, Glenn, the MSM pretends to be objective and denies their seething bias.

Posted by: Mike at April 19, 2006 03:24 PM (XeoHY)

6 Well, where in the hell do you shop, Larry? And tell the truth for one time in your life, if you know how.

Posted by: jesusland joe at April 19, 2006 04:44 PM (rUyw4)

7 Ummm...you guys aren't one of those blogs secretly getting paid by Wal-Mart are you?

Posted by: Alexander Wolfe at April 19, 2006 05:00 PM (018Z+)

8 WARNING: New topic (was re: media bias against Wal-Mart) My comment is: why all this big concern for Wal-Mart? Last time I checked, Wal-Mart was the number one player sending America's manufacturing business to China and helping the Chinese communists build up their manufacturing capacity at the expense of our own. Along the same vein, Wal-Mart was very recently busted by the Bush Administration for employing illegal workers. I can't even imagine how blatant a company would have to be in this day and age to get busted by the George "what borders?" Bush Administration for hiring illegals. Wal-Mart's executives are the masters at cutting costs and driving down prices. Good for them, but is that all there is? Look, I fully understand we all benefit in the short run from keeping manufacturing costs down, and I fully understand the concept of comparative advantage. But should we really be placing our country's manufacturing capacity in the hands of communist dictators? Should we go to bat for the people that do more than anything else to make this happen? Personally, I think perhaps we should all be a bit more concerned about this.

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold at April 19, 2006 06:14 PM (1g7g2)

9 I wish the hell they were paying me, period. But alas, no. Although I'm not a blogger.

Posted by: jesusland joe at April 19, 2006 06:15 PM (rUyw4)

10 Mike-- >>>I haven't seen any of the MSM admit to being left-wing house organs with aggressive political agendas." Uh, possibly because they're not. The myth of media liberalism is just that. Most "MSM" are owned by giant conglomerates, owned by ultra-conservative individuals/holding groups and funded by giant conglomerate -- and by nature conservative-- advertisers. The vast majority would therefore stand to gain nothing from forwarding a leftwing agenda and would more than likely prosper from pushing a rightwing one -- if they chose to take a partisan stand. >>>And, in my estimation, publishing dozens of front page Abu Ghraib stories with pictures and not one Mohammad cartoon is not being objective. That's no comparison. The events at Abu Ghraib were a photographic record of a factual event. The Mohammed cartoons were somebody's opinion, created to express a thought that tended up pissing off a bunch of people. Blogsites are opinion/editorial based. Though often written by well-informed, intelligent and articulate people, they are not held to the same standards or conventions as bonafide media, just like someone's diary is not. Sorry, but those are the facts.

Posted by: Glenn at April 19, 2006 06:48 PM (oxMjD)

11 The myth of media liberalism is just that. Uh-huh. Keep repeating that and you might convince someone. Unfortunately for you, the rest of us can see what and how the press acts. BTW -- pointing to corporate ownership is not refutation to the facts of their bias. Corporations quite frequently use government power to eliminate competition. In the media realm this is often through things like the "Fairness Doctrine" and "campaign finance reform".

Posted by: Robert Crawford at April 19, 2006 06:53 PM (Gn9tM)

12 How are the Fairness Doctrine and campaign finance reform being used by the media to eliminate competition? Look, the fact they hold your guys' feet to the fire doesn't mean the institution is corrupt. You loved 'em when they covered the Clinton blow job in tedious detail.

Posted by: Glenn at April 19, 2006 07:16 PM (oxMjD)

13 Is nobody banning the idiots anymore?

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 20, 2006 05:10 AM (0yYS2)

14 Yep, while they were covering the "Clinton blow job in tedious detail" they were ignoring the "Clinton/Chinese connection". Clinton was so enamored with the Chinese he flung that door open wide. And I agree that Bush should be slamming it shut, but let's call a spade a spade here. I still don't understand why every time Clinton's name pops up it's connected to the blow job to the exclusion of every other aspect of his presidency.

Posted by: Oyster at April 20, 2006 06:19 AM (YudAC)

15 I've said it before and I'll say it again: Clinton fully deserved to be removed from office, but not for getting a blowjob from a frumpy intern. He deserved to be removed for selling out to the Chinese communist dictatorship.

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold at April 20, 2006 09:14 AM (Gj4c3)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

April 13, 2006

MSM's South Park Hypocrisy

The story of the censored South Park episode has hit the mainstream media, after, of course, being exposed on blogs first (See Howie's post below). Wednesday's episode was supposed to contain a scene of the Muslim prophet Mohammed, in reference to the famous Danish Mohammed cartoons that caused Islamic zealots to indulge in rioting, arson, and murder throughout the Islamic world.

From ABC News: more...

Posted by: Bluto at 11:03 PM | Comments (31) | Add Comment
Post contains 374 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Comedy Central /did/ allow a depiction of Mohammed to air, a few seasons ago. Screencap is up here: http://www.divus.org/

Posted by: Chris at April 14, 2006 12:19 AM (1s6Th)

2 Please, where can I see and get a copy of the cartoon of Jesus defecating on Bush????

Posted by: Mary Lou at April 14, 2006 12:41 AM (vbxlH)

3 You can get it at the whorehouse where your mom works, Mary Lou.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 14, 2006 05:11 AM (0yYS2)

4 The cartoons were published in the United States. I do not get obsession with these Mohammed cartoons. But Comedy Central should thank those of you who helped publicize the episode which was repeated last night. I watched it again and still found it very childish and unamusing (and I usually like SP). There is a reason it is on cable and Family Guy is on real TV

Posted by: Don Surber at April 14, 2006 06:30 AM (OIxNx)

5 Family Guy is on FOX because it isn't funny.

Posted by: Michael Hampton at April 14, 2006 06:51 AM (FVbj6)

6 Shenanigans! Why didn't somebody tell me! Where's my broom?

Posted by: Bentsteele at April 14, 2006 07:17 AM (CbxGk)

7 >>>When the cartoons were reprinted in newspapers worldwide in January and February, it sparked a wave of protests primarily in Islamic countries. An utter lie from the Liberal MSM. The STORY was reported worldwide, but the cartoons were printed in only a handful of papers. And that was all it took to send the Ummah hordes on a rampage. Guess what, Comedy Central. Christians consider what you do to our faith blasphemous too. Do you only "respect" people who chop your heads off? You Liberals are gutless snivelling cowards.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 14, 2006 08:20 AM (8e/V4)

8 Don Surber: I missed their publication, other than on the internet. As far as I know, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Fox, and all major newspapers refused to carry them "out of respect for Islam", which made for some strange (and no doubt embarrassing) convolutions when they tried to report the story. I see no reason to gratuitously insult someone's religion, however, when the practitioners of that religion threaten violence to suppress freedom of speech and of the press, then the press has a moral duty to defy them. 99.99999% of the American press were derelict in their duty. Do you have a link?

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 14, 2006 08:29 AM (RHG+K)

9 Bluto I did see one, one time on FNS.

Posted by: Howie at April 14, 2006 08:32 AM (D3+20)

10 The TV news networds all pixelated out the pictures of Mohammed, out of "respect" I suppose (read fear of head chopping). No such respect for the christian faith. I guess we haven't "earned" it.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 14, 2006 08:50 AM (8e/V4)

11 The Philadelphia Inquirer did publish the cartoons. Mary Lou, i'm sure the part with jesus defecating on Bush will be on youtube soon.

Posted by: Gottayo at April 14, 2006 10:02 AM (B/KNF)

12 Jesusland Carlos- the cartoons in questions were only published in Dutch newspapers waaay back in November. When word of the cartoons, including photocopies of them, reached street-level Islam a couple of months ago, the riots/protests started. So it wasn't necessarily the images that sparked the violence -- but the IDEAS of the images. the way IDEAS are shaped by OPINIONS, CONTEXT, PROPAGNDA & PRESUMPTIONS. is this issue. Not who printed what, when.

Posted by: IM Mol at April 14, 2006 12:28 PM (xYJFV)

13 "It's inaccurate to say that the Mohammed cartoons were published "worldwide", unless "worldwide" has been redefined to exclude the United States." This is being pretty frickin picky. If "worldwide" is inaccurate when one country isn't included, then the word is inaccurate in nearly every use of the word. Also, inaccuracy is not hypocrisy. "MSM's South Park Inaccuracy" may not be a cool headline, but at least it isn't, well, inaccurate. Now criticizing you for being picky, then being complaining about using a word in the wrong context... THERE'S a true example of hypocrisy.

Posted by: vune at April 14, 2006 12:56 PM (5WejT)

14 Com Cen chickened out. They should have allowed the use of an image of the Prophet. The more people that "respect" that demand by Islamicists (which isn't even clear in the Koran--there are Muslim art works in history that depict Mohammed, it is depictions of GOD that are forbidden), the more those who defy it stand out for attack. But the biggest problem is that the episode wasn't funny. I love SP the movie, and they have often satirized religion to great effect, in the long tradition of Jonathan Swift, Mencken, and Richard Pryor. Their episode on Mormonism was priceless, and their skewering of the Passion of the Christ deft. They even nailed Osama with verve. But this episode was preachy, and simply not funny. And to the guy who blamed "liberals" for SP's rudeness to Christ--wrong. Stone and Parker are not liberals. Nobody skewered Jesse Jackson as well as these guys. They are equal opportunity satirists, and very often, their targets are those on the left. My guess is they are libertarians, not liberals. They have a deep abiding antipathy to organized religion, obviously, but they have problems with authority of all kinds (as well as an obsession with pedophilia, at least as shock-humor). They are hit-miss humorists. Sometimes they make me laugh out loud, as with the movie. Sometimes, they just gross me out. Other times, they are just offensive for the sake of being offensive, as with their scatalogical humor involving Jesus and Bush. What I found most offensive about it was that it wasn't funny.

Posted by: jd at April 14, 2006 01:54 PM (aqTJB)

15 jd, fine, Stone and Parker are equal opportunity offenders. But Liberals aren't. They have a long history of intentionally defiling christian symbols, but now suddenly call for "respect" for islam. I hope that little bit of blatant hypocrisy gives you an inkling into why Liberals are so despised.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 14, 2006 10:11 PM (8e/V4)

16 Yea Mr. Stone and Mr. Parker are not liberals. They didn't even make fun of George Bush, which everybody does and its old anyhow. I heard an interview those two strapping young lads did on the Drudge Report. The Drudge Report. They said they love The Drudge Report. I do not consider that show very liberal. Now Comedy Central brass ball bags, and Viacom, thatÂ’s liberal.. Its okay to have Jesus win a rigged boxing match against Satan but no Muhammad, who was a kid toucher just like L. Ron Hubbard by the way. Comedy Central sucks. They need to go to FOX. I am sure good old Rupert would allow it. HeÂ’s Australian and its a known fact that Australians hate middle eastern kid touchers that start religions.

Posted by: A Big American Cowboy with a Marlboro (not the gay one in that movie) at April 15, 2006 03:46 AM (ZKqFy)

17 We are in agreement that liberals who oppose offending Islam but celebrate and appreciate satires of Christianity are hypocrites of the first order. Viacom isn't liberal, in my view, but cowardly. We do well to call them on that. The majority of liberals who I have read on this topic take your position--that sacred cows should be exposed. The caricature of liberals as all agreeing to PC sensitivities is not the liberalism that I know. Are their liberals who think like that? Sure. Are they the majority? Again, not in my experience. If that is why you hate liberals, you should be aware there are many many liberals who agree with you on this point.

Posted by: jd at April 15, 2006 06:17 AM (uT71O)

18 As for the Prophet being a pedophile: within his own historical period, it was not that uncommon for weddings to be consumated at menarche, not only in his society, but in the Christian societies that led to our own. It was legal for a girl to be married as young as 12 with the permission of her parents in frontier texas. In colonial America, it was not uncommon for a woman of 16 to already have two children. Does this mean America was founded by "kid touchers"? I'd like to think not. Mohammed was married to a girl when she was 9, most historians don't think such weddings were consumated until menarche. Either way, the age at which sex was appropriate has been spiraling upward in the last two hundred years in the West, first among the wealthy, then among the hoi polloi. There are many reasons to disbelieve or dislike Islam, historically or currently. The Mohammed as pedophile meme is probably not one of them.

Posted by: jd at April 15, 2006 06:19 AM (uT71O)

19 Well, it seems that Muhammad and L. Ron Hubbard have gotten to you. Zoinks! Well if my crusade to stop Hillary Clinton, L. Ron Hubbard and Muhammad is going to work I suppose it won't be with you. You see in the year 622, when the Catholics tried to outlaw kid touching, the Arabs were al little upset, since they loved to fondle children. So a man from nowhere, stood up to their evil plans, That one man was, Muhammad. He stood up for the right to Marry your nine year old cousins. He really represented the people. Then one day the Catholics took it too far. They beheaded his beloved pig Francis and left it in his bed to try and scare him. So he then, in his little buddies memory gave a tearful, yet riveting speech to his people. It was hear in Medina, then around the globe. It was at that time, out of respect for Muhammad that pigs became sacred. He decided to start his own religion to show those Catholics who is boss. Muhammad, being the justified kid toucher he is would not allow the Catholics to get away with this dastardly deed! He then began his own religion in which he killed a bunch of people for no reason. He really showed those Catholics! So the torch of the true story behind the kind prophet Muhammad has been passed from generation to generation. Kid touchers from all over in elite positions know about this. I know about this, well, because I was married to Hillary Clinton when I was 5. I barley escaped from the Clinton Compound with my life. So listen up truth bearers. If something isn't defined by people do, but what people believe it to be, well, then Muhammad, was a great man. And liberals stand up for the rights of wonderful organizations that have roots in Islam. One of these many is called NAMBLA. SO I say if a cat barks it must be a turkey, and if a liberal is standing up for the rights of free speech of kid touchers, then, by golly who am I to say that liberals are not great folk! This is America. Girly liberals and red neck conservatives should be holding hands saying, We're not going to take it! Then and only then can the proper respect for Muhammad be shown. Only then can we all marry 9 year old cousins. Only then will this country be great.

Posted by: A Big American Cowboy with a Marlboro (not the gay one in that movie) at April 15, 2006 01:01 PM (ZKqFy)

20 I consider this attempt at satire self-refuting.

Posted by: jd at April 15, 2006 06:02 PM (uT71O)

21 Funny how everyone just takes the bait. If Christians were really that offended, they could put South Park out of business instantly by boycotting the products adevetised on any network that shows it. And you know what? It would be an act of free speech. Just as it was Comedy Central's choice what to air and what not to air on their own network. For all those whuining about how 'liberals' are more afraid of muslim reprisal that Christian outrage, I invide you to either organize said boycott and put your money where your mouth is, or admit that you are not THAT offended after all or are to lazy to actually exercise your right to vote with your dollars and your feet.

Posted by: Tim at April 16, 2006 10:30 PM (19a7L)

22 I seriously doubt that many Christians have South Park on their list of late-night entertainment choices.

Posted by: Last word Larry at April 17, 2006 05:25 PM (FCC6c)

23 "Im Jesus, would you like for me to a crap on you Mr Boosh?" haha one of the funniest things I have ever seen on television. And not offensive whatsoever. quit being so uptight you puritans, their not just being vulgar, they are proving a point.

Posted by: TommytheCat at April 21, 2006 04:10 AM (b1Dtu)

24 This single cartoon just shows how fragile and radical the islamic world is. All it takes is one simple cartoon and you are having riots and killings?? What kind of religion is this that sparks violence at any protest to it? The christian world has been under attack since the days of jesus, but you dont see us going out doing suicide bomb runs. I know not all muslims are radical and some are very true to their faith, but it makes you realize how insane the middle east is. And dont even try to connect this to iraq, cause it has nothing to do with it. We are in iraq as a staging point for resource dommination in that region, AKA oil. We will slowly pull out of iraq after establishing a few super bases in the country, which will be used to somewhat stabilize the flow of oil from the region. Yeah, and dont think oil isnt important, even if we do reduce our oil dependancy its only real effect will be in transportation. Oil is still a key ingrediant in pesticides, plastics, and most any other product that helps us have this american way of life. And also, fuck off global climate change people, sea levels will only rise another 24" in the next 100 years!!! plenty of time to accomodate and adjust, so our kids will be fine.

Posted by: the middle east at May 06, 2006 02:41 PM (Sq6o+)

25 your a fool seriously a simple cartoon lol what would you say if you saw a cartoon of jesus which you wont see because well jesus is a prophet in islam isa dont you see all religions are similar ? and man your a typical american the speech about oil thank god im in england lol and really the british people are not fond of bush the mother fucker could atleast speek of the guantanamo british detainees how insane the middle east is lol their actually the most educated people who without the worls would be nothing were did roman numerals come from? i wonder if we could count were did plastic surgery come from? were did chess come from? intelligence is needed for that game islam is connected to science the word islam means peace ok theirs some extremists bombing themselves in anger but dosent every religion have misunderstood ppl and is economic wealth of a country important if people in the otherside of the world are dieing how would one country survive if others end the worls revolves around each country no more croissants for you if you pick on the french lol bye bye fool

Posted by: middle east is a bush fuker at June 08, 2006 11:50 PM (u+Jtv)

26 Yo, Middle East is a bush fucker...before you go and start calling pther people stupid you should really check your own grammer and content...you make no god damn sense...and you're British?? Don't you wankers speak english hahahahaha GO USA!!!!!

Posted by: godisdead at June 11, 2006 01:22 AM (IBXq5)

27 u dumb american this is not a english exam slang is appropraite enogh when conversing with u fools

Posted by: middle east is a bush fuker at June 11, 2006 03:56 PM (u+Jtv)

28 usa is full of shit even the cars are shit you lot are jokes he dude rock on fuck sake homer simpson is the image of each american

Posted by: middle east is a bush fuker at June 11, 2006 04:00 PM (u+Jtv)

29 u stupidmother fukers dnt u get it bush is takin u 2 hell all he wants is ur mums fanny crack and ur dads balls dats the devil talking. nw here the truth there is 1 god believe it or not and i promise u im not hypocritical but there is proof and im not tellin u 2 change but there wil b a judgement day and every1 wil suffer.bk 2 the devil u stupid fukrs its not alwayz abt sex unless ur mum wants 2 fuk me ill make ur mums fanny sweaT LKE THE HOLY PISS DAT U DRINK BYE BYE

Posted by: ake at June 12, 2006 07:37 PM (mHX7T)

30 WE DO NO SEE christians running around the streets with AK-47s when we see jesus shunned on.... you muslims and arabs need ot buckle down or the US is going to kill every one of ya.. QUOTE ON QUOTE... YOU HAVE no right to kill and destroy stuff...((we know thats what arabs do best))... this cartoon is FUNNY as hell.. get us to the fact that we hate muslims in the United States of the america (hell ya)

Posted by: American Devoted at June 14, 2006 08:09 AM (tuSO1)

31 No I don't hate anyone. See they do that hating and the killing. We respond to that. they have decarled themselves our enemy. We oblidge by kicking their ass. Not hate, necessity.

Posted by: Howie at June 14, 2006 08:15 AM (D3+20)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

April 11, 2006

Fitz Puts (Mis)Stake Through Shuster's Heart

Nathan Goulding of National Review Online had already called out Hardball's David Shuster for some quite blatant lies and distortions; and then George at Seixon used these same overt lies to discredit a fawning DailyKos entry about Shuster. George also notes that he has registered to comment at DailyKos; he might want to see how the Kossacks deal with infidels first.

Among other fabrications, Shuster concocted a "quote" from Libby saying that a "key judgement" of the NIE (meaning all were agreed) was that Saddam was "vigorously trying to procure uranium". MSNBC put it onscreen as a super - see the Seixon link for a screen capture. more...

Posted by: Bluto at 11:14 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 272 words, total size 2 kb.

April 04, 2006

Malkin Exposes NBC Plot to Stigmatize NASCAR Fans

One of Michelle Malkin's readers has forwarded emails to her detailing an NBC Dateline scheme to provoke anti-Muslim/anti-Arab behavior at a NASCAR event. According to the email, sent out to members of a Knoxville Muslim organization in response to queries from Dateline producers, NBC wants:

...a guy with no foreign accent whatsoever, a good thick beard, an outgoing personality, and someone willing to wear a kufi/skullcap during the filming.
They also want someone who is fairly well accomplished and has contributed to American society at large in some meaningful way.
That said, I'm urgently looking for someone who can be filmed this April 1st weekend at a Nascar event (and other smaller events) in Virginia. NBC is willing to fly in someone and cover their weekend expenses. The filming would take place all day on Saturday and Sunday.

Quick, somebody set up a sting to gauge the elitist prejudices of NBC Dateline executives who think that all NASCAR fans are inbred hicks who don't vote Democrat often enough.

Note to NASCAR fans: NBC apparently wants to film their stunt at a NASCAR event this coming weekend (April - a follow-up email, also posted by Malkin notes the change in plan.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto and Vince Aut Morire.

Posted by: Bluto at 12:57 PM | Comments (44) | Add Comment
Post contains 226 words, total size 2 kb.

1 There they go again, trying to create news instead of reporting it. Doing this at sports events is blatant profiling. Someone quick - call them up an tell them they forgot country music festivals. What a bunch of putzes.

Posted by: Oyster at April 04, 2006 01:51 PM (uZPWy)

2 What a bunch of crap. NBC is stupid and anyone that watches it is stupid.

Posted by: Jim at April 04, 2006 02:15 PM (DxLwq)

3 The fact is, if you place one or two people in a crowd and purposely make them look different to everyone else, they'll get some looks - but it doesn't necessarily mean hatred. So this'll be another lame piece of "investigative journalism" where the video shows nothing of interest happening, but the "victims" stating how tense the situation was and how uncomfortable they were. If NBC wants some really interesting footage, put two Orthodox Jews to stand outside a mosque.

Posted by: Graeme at April 04, 2006 02:34 PM (yPRZ1)

4 Wasn't it NBC back in the 80s that got caught staging 'news' with gas tank explosions on Ford pickups?

Posted by: Mike at April 04, 2006 02:49 PM (KR+0J)

5 Wonder what Sprint-Nextel would think about this. I hope they pull every advertising $ they spend at NBC including Races!

Posted by: Cindy at April 04, 2006 02:52 PM (hUZ4U)

6 Knoxville eh? Maybe I should drop by the local Middle Eastern market and put out the word that such an even might be a bad idea.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 04, 2006 03:41 PM (0yYS2)

7 I.M., if you get close to some of those Muslims, please take some small piglets with you to let go. I bet they run faster than you can say NASCAR.

Posted by: Leatherneck at April 04, 2006 03:47 PM (D2g/j)

8 Oh I get close to them all the time, and I let them think I'm a good dhimmi. Hell, they may even try to recruit me to their cause, and then I'll be all over them like a cheap suit.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 04, 2006 04:33 PM (0yYS2)

9 If I'm not mistaken, NBC SPORTS presently has a contract to televise the second half of each (this) seasons NASCAR race schedule.... I would think that Bill France Jr. who runs NASCAR, and who also issued the contract, might have something to say about NBC News trying to 'sting' what is essentially a sport entirely run by the France family. If I were Bill France I would put some heat on NBC to find some other sport to trick

Posted by: n.a.palm at April 04, 2006 04:49 PM (uO8TL)

10 Rathergate may be gone but it is a news fabrication routine the MSM/DNC learned well the last 55 years. They will continue to do the "Ugly America" news lie because it seemd to work so well for Brinkley and Cronkite 55 years ago. Of course there was no Talk Radio then. And then they wonder why their market share has shrunk the last 26 years?!

Posted by: Jo macDougal at April 04, 2006 05:49 PM (adQET)

11 Someone write him a letter and tell him what NBC is doing: Bill France Jr. Chairman of NASCAR and International Speedway Corp. NASCAR P.O. Box 2875 Daytona Beach, FL 32120

Posted by: Oyster at April 04, 2006 05:54 PM (YudAC)

12 If NASCAR wanted to get even, they should stage a mock beatdown by some Middle-Eastern looking men on some innocent bystander, screaming "allahu akbar" the whole time.

Posted by: Insomniac at April 04, 2006 06:40 PM (wZLWV)

13 Thank God for Talk Radio (27 years)and blogs (7 years). When Uncle Walter would smear America with his Ugly America lies 60 years ago there was no source to give the truth to the public. Now when another Rathergate hapens there are people like Michelle to get us the truth; and do it in real time. Uncle Walt would have lost his job by 1965 had there been Talk Radio and blogs 50 years ago.

Posted by: Rod Stanton at April 04, 2006 07:00 PM (adQET)

14 Apparently reporting on animosity against Muslims isn't enough for ol Tarek....now he's trying to manufacture some for the TV cameras. Read below taken from google link. Tarek El-Messidi says Muslims have experienced "a lot of backlash against us as a community, even though we are very diverse and a peace loving people. http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:vlQgtahLJ0gJ:www.wate.com/Global/story.asp%3FS%3D1193074+Tarek+El-Messidi&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=8&client=firefox-a

Posted by: mrclark at April 04, 2006 07:27 PM (Na6eO)

15 I don't understand why NBC has to be so sneaky about it. If you they would ask me, or any of my NASCAR loving friends, we would be happy to explain why we hate islam, and the brain dead followers of the mass murdering, drug addicted, baby raping, pedophile "prophet" mohammed. We might even quote a few passages from th unholy qu'ran, to prove our point, if they asked nice. Quit with all the sneaking around, and act like you have caught us with our in the racist cookie jar! Islam's an ideology, not a race, so suck it, NBC! Sheesh! BTW, that YALE taliban guy... I think his home addy is listed in the white pages. Dumbass.

Posted by: Princess Kimberley at April 04, 2006 07:54 PM (bMVL0)

16 Rathergate was awesome. The MSM lost almost all credibilty after that little incident. As for Yale, who lets in anyone with a 4th grade education? Not to mention a terrorist.

Posted by: Craig at April 04, 2006 08:18 PM (b3fZv)

17 Now that I've had time to think about it, I hope they do provoke an incident and cause a lot of domestic muslims to go on the rampage, because that might prove to be the turning point, and a good excuse to hang a few.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 04, 2006 08:19 PM (0yYS2)

18 Time to wring the peacocks neck

Posted by: sandpiper at April 04, 2006 08:24 PM (PObDu)

19 The improbable man strikes again! the only thing he could hang would be a washing line, and that would probably fall down. Wouldn't it be funny to drop him into Fallujah, just for the laughs you understand.

Posted by: Sonic at April 04, 2006 08:42 PM (Gsn6c)

20 This is ridiculous. It's so frustrating to read things like that!

Posted by: sports crazy at April 04, 2006 08:44 PM (rjg51)

21 Sonic, how about we drop a nice 50 MT hydrogen bomb on fallujah instead of 'ol maximus? You can never have too much glass, ya know. Then, I encourage you to visit there. Stay as long as you like.

Posted by: jamsler at April 04, 2006 08:56 PM (VqA/E)

22 Sonic, at least I.M. would go down fighting, you would just cry for your mommie. Mommie! Mommie!

Posted by: Leatherneck at April 04, 2006 08:57 PM (D2g/j)

23 He would go down, thats the point. people who talk like that don't have any guts when the sh*t really hits the fan, and thats a fact.

Posted by: Sonic at April 04, 2006 09:45 PM (Gsn6c)

24 I don't know, Sonic, IM let loose a few bursts back in Gulf War I, and I think he might have been a cannon cocker, too, but it doesn't matter. He's seen the elephant! I wonder if you have, because I kinda doubt it. I haven't met very many people from New Zealand, I only know two personally, but both of them I would list as sissies in the dictionary of life. I figure you fit in that category as well, but perhaps not. Again, I doubt you have seen any combat. But we are all just dying to know!

Posted by: jesusland joe at April 04, 2006 09:54 PM (rUyw4)

25 Sure Jesusland, thats us Kiwis, all sissies. IM is a liar, you only need to read a few of his posts to work out he was a REMF at best. Fact.

Posted by: Sonic at April 04, 2006 10:29 PM (Gsn6c)

26 How do you know that it is a fact? I've read a few of your posts and you are just plain stupid. FACT!

Posted by: jesusland joe at April 04, 2006 10:36 PM (rUyw4)

27 Everybody knows that the Aussies threw all the pansies out of OZ and sent them to New Zealand.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 04, 2006 11:16 PM (RHG+K)

28 Thanks for the heads up over at my place Don. I noted Michelle's story earlier but have not had time to post anything at Full Throttle. I may get to that this morning. I'm also going to post notices at many of the racing blogs I visit.

Posted by: Marc at April 05, 2006 05:28 AM (3l5dJ)

29 I like the Fallujah idea myself. Everyone dies, so that's no big deal. To me, that'd be like dying in a candy store. I could probably get a couple hundred before they got me, but my dead-man switch with a timer on a 20lb satchel charge would get a few more when they came to dance on my corpse. Barring that event though, I still plan on getting a few when they get uppity here.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 05, 2006 06:15 AM (0yYS2)

30 Well 24 hours later let's try to get back to the original post. Not one MSM including Fox has had anything to say about this. I think this whole story was a spoof. There just does not seem to be any CREDIBLE tie in to NBC. Why would NBC be asking some muslim student leader in arranging help to do this ? Why would he be sending this out as part of a mass mailing ? Until someone can show me more I am putting this in with the "we never really landed on the moon" news items.

Posted by: john Ryan at April 05, 2006 10:38 AM (TcoRJ)

31 I think John may be right. NBC carries the 2nd half of the NASCAR season along with TNT. IÂ’m sure itÂ’s a pretty big investment for them. Why would they spit in their own soup?

Posted by: Brad at April 05, 2006 11:14 AM (3OPZt)

32 Why bother with getting a real middle eastern physical type when Hollywood makeup/prosthetics can replicate the look just fine? Heck, let's gear up an ultra-orthodox black coat, a hari krishna, and a sari wearing buddhist to complete the set. What would be even funnier? If they all enjoy the race without a single comment or ugly incident. Maybe, just maybe, NASCAR fans aren't the US' version of soccer hooligans.

Posted by: TM Lutas at April 05, 2006 04:30 PM (z/jms)

33 As I said, blowhard.

Posted by: Sonic at April 05, 2006 04:44 PM (Gsn6c)

34 No, as bad as I hate to say it, I believe this story is true. NBC is definitely working on a story that will purport to show the discrimination the poor Muslims are receiving in the US, none of it caused by the Dark Ages cult religion they profess. No, this is the playing of the race card, even though Muslims are not a race. NBC and the MSM are worthy of .........Well, you fill in the blank. I'll leave it to your imagination.

Posted by: jesusland joe at April 05, 2006 06:58 PM (rUyw4)

35 There is now a story on MSNBC that reports the attempted plot to create news. It happened this past weekend at Martinsville, as a Muslim man and two women dressed in Muslim garb attempted to get a negative reaction from NASCAR fans, but were unsuccessful. NASCAR has confronted NBC about this, and Dateline has admitted doing the story. They may also be at the Texas Motor Speedway this weekend to attempt another sting. The ones who should have their asses kicked are the producers of this fake news.

Posted by: jesusland joe at April 05, 2006 07:47 PM (rUyw4)

36 provoke?

Posted by: actus at April 05, 2006 08:11 PM (nnhSu)

37 What's your take on this, actus? Is this how news is done?

Posted by: jesusland joe at April 05, 2006 09:00 PM (rUyw4)

38 "What's your take on this, actus? Is this how news is done?" Its how undercover work is done. I have no idea if news is done this way. It doesn't seem very provocative to have a muslim at a NASCAR event.

Posted by: actus at April 05, 2006 11:49 PM (nnhSu)

39 No, apparently it wasn't provocative to NASCAR fans, either. So there, the rednecks didn't take the bait. Good on them. But NBC should lose NASCAR, because this is an attempt to create news, not report news. And you call it undercover work, now who woulda guessed that?

Posted by: jesusland joe at April 06, 2006 05:59 AM (rUyw4)

40 Rectus, being a typical liberal and so not quite as smart as he gives himself credit for being, has once again exposed his true thoughts on the matter. Why would someone need to go undercover to stage and provoke an incident at a public event, if not to further a secret agenda? Why not just ask people what they think? We all know the answers, but liberals will still try to tell you that black is white. It's like they use 1984 and Brave New World as operations manuals without realizing that we've read them too.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 06, 2006 01:38 PM (0yYS2)

41 "Why would someone need to go undercover to stage and provoke an incident at a public event, if not to further a secret agenda? " I don't see why people are talking about provocation. Is this provocative?

Posted by: actus at April 06, 2006 01:41 PM (CqheE)

42 Is it provocative for skinheads to march in a black or Jewish neighborhood? Liberals are so stupid.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 07, 2006 06:19 AM (0yYS2)

43 "Is it provocative for skinheads to march in a black or Jewish neighborhood? Liberals are so stupid." I had a shaved head when I lived in a predominantly black neighborhood.

Posted by: actus at April 08, 2006 07:29 PM (nnhSu)

44 I'm sorry rectus, I didn't mean to express concepts that were so far over your head. I'll keep all my future posts on shiny things where you're concerned.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 09, 2006 09:42 AM (0yYS2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

April 03, 2006

Gauging the Media's Civil War in Iraq

Engram at Best of the Fray (the blog, not the Slate forum) has been doing some research to substantiate the increasing carnage in the mainstream media declared civil war in Iraq: more...

Posted by: Bluto at 11:59 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 193 words, total size 1 kb.

1 It seems whenever you guys start crowing about drops in US troop casualties the number suddenly spikes. 14 dead in last three days. http://icasualties.org/oif/ If you cared about the troops I would suggest keeping it shut.

Posted by: Sonic at April 03, 2006 05:03 PM (Gsn6c)

2 I think that even though the absolute number being killed in Iraq is the same in the first 3 months of this year and the first 3 months of last, there has been a definite change in the way that they have been killed. Last year most of the civilian casualties were from terrorist bombs. This year they seem to be more of the abduction followed by torture/murder type.

Posted by: john Ryan at April 03, 2006 05:13 PM (TcoRJ)

3 Sonic, this is about deliberate misreporting by the mainstream media, not "crowing". I have to say, you are one of the stupidest sacks of shit I've ever seen post on Jawa, and it disgusts me to see people actually cheering for the terrorist insurgency, as you quite obviously are doing. You should get yourself a short rope and do the right thing. john ryan, all the people you mention were killed by terrorists. I fail to see the significance of the tactics and methods of murder. With the MSM declaring a civil war in progress, it's interesting to note that the Brookings statistics do not bear out the hysterical reproting.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 03, 2006 05:37 PM (RHG+K)

4 Pointing out casualties=cheering on the insurgency. Hmm Perhaps if we all kept quiet about the dead they would pop back to life?

Posted by: Sonic at April 03, 2006 07:22 PM (Gsn6c)

5 So Sonic, now you know what it's like to have someone deliberately and maliciously misconstrue something you wrote. Did you learn anything? Stupid effing Kiwi.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 03, 2006 07:26 PM (RHG+K)

6 THE DOVE WILL FLY THE VULTURES WILL LIE

Posted by: sandpiper at April 03, 2006 09:41 PM (uTBPj)

7 Perhaps if we all just hanged one idiot liberal every day pretty soon the world would be a better place.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 04, 2006 06:30 AM (0yYS2)

8 The dove may fly, but in the end it's eaten by a vulture or a hawk.

Posted by: Ranba Ral at April 04, 2006 02:04 PM (GyNTD)

9 Ve have vays of making you squawk

Posted by: sandpiper at April 04, 2006 08:29 PM (PObDu)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

March 31, 2006

ABC Producer Suspended Over Email: 'Bush makes me sick.' (Updated)

ABC weekend Good Morning America producer John Green (previous post here) has reportedly been suspended for a month by ABC. From the New York Observer:

ABC News executives have suspended Weekend Good Morning America executive producer John Green for a month, after two politically charged personal e-mails Green sent to a colleague were leaked to the press, according to two network sources.

Click here to see memo.

The exposure of Green's gross bias went virtually unreported by the mainstream media.

Update: protein wisdom notes that another Green memo describes Green's distaste for Madeleine Albright because she has "Jew shame".

Meanwhile, the mainstream media have remained silent on the original memo story and the decision to suspend Green, which was made, conveniently, on a Friday in order to minimize its impact in the standard news cycle. ABC needn't have bothered; their buddies are covering for them just fine.

Via the Drudge Report.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 05:27 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 177 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Is that with or without pay? If they're just giving him a bonus month vacation, that would make me sick.

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at March 31, 2006 06:08 PM (DdRjH)

2 He was set up by KKKarl Rove and/or the Hellibacon/Zionist/Neocon/Space Alien cabal. Da JOOOOooooooooOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooozzz got 'im!

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 31, 2006 07:06 PM (0yYS2)

3 hahaha! another one bites the dust.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 31, 2006 07:15 PM (8e/V4)

4 You know, I don't care that the guy thinks this or that he sent personal e-mails to that effect. It's not a first amendment issue--his employer is private--but I've sent politically charged personal e-mails from work and I wouldn't expect to get fired for that. I do care about biased news coverage. Let the guy work, just be honest about his biases and quit pretending that ABC is objective.

Posted by: See-Dubya at March 31, 2006 07:26 PM (Zozmz)

5 >>>Let the guy work, just be honest about his biases and quit pretending that ABC is objective. I see your point. By firing him ABC gets to pretend they're objective even though they aren't. They'll only replace him with another one just like him.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 31, 2006 07:32 PM (8e/V4)

6 As far as I know, they didn't fire him; they suspended him for a month. What's more telling, and chilling, is the near total MSM news blackout on the memo and the suspension.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 31, 2006 08:54 PM (RHG+K)

7 I like to look at this as more testimony to the power of the Internet, with no consensus control to silence real news.

Posted by: Javapuke at March 31, 2006 11:37 PM (bt+Dw)

8 Were the emails sent through his work account? That would make a difference. Otherwise, I'm with C Dub. If they'd all just qust quit pretending... And I'm still wondering why Jews largely remain in the Democratic Party when most of the anti-semitism we hear of comes from that party.

Posted by: Oyster at April 01, 2006 06:04 AM (YudAC)

9 Oyster, What an interesting comment about Jews and the Democrat Party! Might it be that, in general terms, Republicans do not support the Bill of Rights that protects people from an abusive government? (They may have experience in that regard.) (Today being April Fools Day, it is difficult to know when one's leg is being pulled... or not)

Posted by: Dale at April 01, 2006 06:14 AM (bmPgK)

10 "...Republicans do not support the Bill of Rights that protects people from an abusive government..." What? Hey everyone, here's a liberal knock-knock joke. Knock-knock! Who's there? BUSHISHITLER! Bushishitler who? YEAAARGH!!!

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 01, 2006 06:45 AM (0yYS2)

11 "Might it be that, in general terms, Republicans do not support the Bill of Rights that protects people from an abusive government?" Even if such a statement were true, what the heck does it have to do with mine?

Posted by: Oyster at April 01, 2006 07:26 AM (YudAC)

12 ABC News its still the Awful Broadcasting Company

Posted by: sandpiper at April 01, 2006 08:52 AM (uo3LX)

13 Let's see. Just for the moment I am a Jew. Hey! I'm rich. Ok, not really, but here we go. Conversation overheard between me and my Jewish neighbor who is a Democrat: "Uh, Aaron, the Democrats are now saying that the Jews are the ones at fault in Palestine, and if we would just surrender Israel and let the Palis take over, they would be so kind and loving toward us, especially to our women." "The Democrats said that. And they now call us Zionists and obstructionists and xenophobic. But, the Democrats promise to protect us from the evil Republicans. You know, the evil party that supports Israel and fights terror. And when you talk to al-Queda and other terrorists in the ME like Hamas and Hezbollah, they listen in without telling you. Now this is very bad, especially for the terrorists and their enablers. I don't know, Joseph, I've been a Democrat all my life, and just because they have become a party of anti-Americanism and pro-terror is no reason to leave now." "Ok, Aaron, I see your logic. The Democrats have turned against us, but hey, they are sure to need us sometime in the future, so ride that jackass to the bitter end."

Posted by: jesusland joe at April 01, 2006 09:22 AM (rUyw4)

14 Oyster, there are basically two factions of Jews; those who love America and support Israel, and those who do not. There are a few who love America and do not support Israel, but I have met few of these. I used to think the divide was along secular and religious lines, but now, having met many of both persuasions and read many works from both sides, I see it goes deeper and is much more complex, but the fact remains that there are many in the echelons of power in this country, Mayor Bloomberg of New York, for example, who seem to feel that they should side with muslims who want to kill them rather than with Americans, (read: Evil Whitey), who have been their only champions for the last half-century. My short answer is this: I don't trust anyone anymore, because such inexplicable behavior of taking sides with a declared enemy, or known traitors, is either indication of insanity, stupidity, or ulterior motives. Our own president refuses to do his job, defends the enemy's doctrine while pretending to fight them, and muslims and illegal aliens are still flooding into our country with the one goal of taking over. Nero was more attentive to his duties than Bush. At this rate, America will be unlivable in a few years, but we have no place else to go, so we must choose to fight, or submit and lose our country. I choose to fight, even if it means fighting against our own government, which it looks like will be the case, since they seem to be thoroughly infiltrated by communists, muslims, and appeasers.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 03, 2006 06:37 AM (0yYS2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

March 26, 2006

NBC Producer Reamed at Rahman Rally

NBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell's producer was given some basic instruction in humanity by conservative commentator Cam Edwards Friday. Mitchell's producer showed up at a rally for Adbul Rahman, the Afghan facing death for leaving Islam, outside the Afghan embassy in Washington, D.C. The producer was apparently trying to incite anti-Bush quotes from the protesters.

At some point, Edwards gave him an earful that probably won't make the Nightly News, as mainstream media types are inordinately averse to broadcasting uncomplimentary opinions of themselves. Even richly deserved uncomplimentary opinions. more...

Posted by: Bluto at 12:08 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 211 words, total size 2 kb.

March 24, 2006

Olbermann: ABC Exec Memo a Rovian Plot

Newsbusters has links to video of MSNBC's Keith Olbermann claiming that the White House is responsible for "leaking" an email, posted on The Drudge Report yesterday, in which ABC executive John Green says that the President makes him "sick", and that he might "puke".

Olbermann offered no evidence for his charge that the email had been leaked by the Administration, and referred to Matt Drudge as "infamous" and "deplorable". Olbermann didn't explain why, if his unsupported supposition were true, it would be a bad thing for the White House to seek to publicize the email, which implies a diseased and grossly biased corporate culture at one of the companies charged with using America's airwaves in the public interest.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 12:35 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 139 words, total size 1 kb.

March 23, 2006

Gray Lady Blows it Again

The eleventy-seven layers of editors at the New York Times have screwed the pooch once more (previous outrageous boner here).

From Editor & Publisher [emphasis added]:

NEW YORK For the second time in less than a week, The New York Times today admitted to a serious error in a story. On Saturday it said it had misidentified a man featured in the iconic "hooded inmate" photograph from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Today it discloses that a woman it profiled on March 8 is not, in fact, a victim of Hurricane Katrina--and was arrested for fraud and grand larceny yesterday.
As it did in the Abu Ghraib mistake, the Times ran an editors' note on page 2 of its front section, along with a lengthy news article (this time on the front page of Section B). Again mirroring the Abu Ghraib episode, the newspaper revealed a surprising and inexplicable lapse in fact-checking on the part of a reporter and/or editor.

It's neither surprising nor inexplicable, it's simply one of the pitfalls of creating and slanting stories for the purpose of damaging the Bush administration.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto and Vince Aut Morire.

Posted by: Bluto at 12:37 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 203 words, total size 2 kb.

1 haha! Their bushitler hatred is killing them. BDS.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 23, 2006 01:32 PM (8e/V4)

2 The guy who wrote the original article, Nicholas Confessore, was the same person who later blamed the Times for not checking thoroughly enough into her story? What a crock!

Posted by: Oyster at March 23, 2006 01:44 PM (g9UJq)

3 ABC NEWS EXEC: 'BUSH MAKES ME SICK'; E-MAIL REVEALED A top producer at ABC NEWS declared "Bush makes me sick" in an email obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT. John Green, currently executive producer of the weekend edition of GOOD MORNING AMERICA, unloaded on the president in an ABC company email obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT. "If he uses the 'mixed messages' line one more time, I'm going to puke," Green complained. The blunt comments by Green, along with other emails obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT, further reveal the inner workings of the nation's news outlets. A friend of Green's at ABC says Green is mortified by the email. "John feels so badly about this email. He is a straight shooter and great producer who is always fair. That said, he deeply regrets the sentiment expressed in the email and the embarrassment it causes ABC News." Developing... http://www.drudgereport.com/flash9ab.htm

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 23, 2006 01:51 PM (8e/V4)

4 Another "smoking gun" on media bias? How many more actual non-forged documents will it take?

Posted by: Chief RZ at March 23, 2006 02:16 PM (iNTGz)

5 Where is John Ryan and the noise? Surely they can explain this "mistake" on the part of the NYT. Surely!

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 23, 2006 03:16 PM (rUyw4)

6 you dumb neo con sheep,everything charlie sheen said is the truth,silverstein admitted they "pulled"the building.a demolition takes weeks to plan for,not an hour!wake up, you sheep will beleive anthing!!!

Posted by: dale at March 23, 2006 03:22 PM (fM9Xc)

7 Begs the question -- who can trust anything you read in their newspaper. Do you think their stock price will be zero before Bush retires? They announced earnings reduction and revenue shortfall just yesterday and their bonds are teetering on junk. Gonna be close. Doubt they will figure out what the problem is.

Posted by: 10ksnooker at March 23, 2006 03:34 PM (7evkT)

8 Dale forgot his medication again.

Posted by: Oyster at March 23, 2006 03:39 PM (MkwVi)

9 >>>everything charlie sheen said is the truth, how sad.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 23, 2006 03:58 PM (8e/V4)

10 DPB: I read the story and the retraction...you have to look pretty hard to find the "creating and slanting stories for the purpose of damaging the Bush administration" angle to it. Sounds to me like lazy journalism on a routine Katrina story -- unless every story written about a Katrina victim has no news value and is merely another attempt to damage the administration of course.

Posted by: Eric at March 23, 2006 04:13 PM (UHKaK)

11 dale, how would you be in a position to know these things? Just curious.

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 23, 2006 04:20 PM (rUyw4)

12 Eric, why do you think NBC has carried a Katrina story every night since the hurricane, that's what, more than six months of spots? Certainly their viewers are tired of it, so there must be another purpose. I wonder what that could be?

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 23, 2006 04:41 PM (RHG+K)

13 Isn't it obvious JJ? Dale gets secret coded messages through his tinfoil hat.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 23, 2006 06:31 PM (0yYS2)

14 In Morse Code, IM, or in the super secret alien script?

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 23, 2006 07:12 PM (rUyw4)

15 The DaVinci code, most likely.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 24, 2006 06:11 AM (0yYS2)

16 DPB;My reference was to the Times story, don't really watch NBC so can't really comment. But isn't NBC a holding of GE, a major vendor to the War? Why would they cut their own throats with the admin ... unless someone is still listening?

Posted by: Eric at March 24, 2006 08:39 AM (UHKaK)

17 Eric, the news division operates on its own; it doesn't receive stories from above. Leftward bias in the mainstream media isn't decided at the corporate level, it's a soft conspiracy that continues because of a lack of ideological diversity at every level of journalism. Look at the outrage among liberals because Fox tries to be politically neutral. It's as if one of THOSE families were buying a house in an all-white neighborhod.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 24, 2006 09:01 AM (RHG+K)

18 The NEW YORK TIME is like the horns of a steer A POINT HERE A POINT THERE AND A LOT OF BULL IN BETWEEN

Posted by: sandpiper at March 24, 2006 09:44 AM (nMpEK)

19 DPB; That's probably where you and I differ: ideology has no place in journalism, left or right. And insisting upon more of a rightward slant to combat the perceptions of a leftward one does more to damage journalism than it does to "balance" it. Balance? What about truth? Your model implicitly agrees there are no objective truths, merely differing agenda-driven viewpoints. Can any kind of truth ever be derived from such a system? If we end up with the kind of news that lobs televised softballs to their ideological counterparts in the government, but holds the feet of the other guys to the fire, that's not news. That's PR.

Posted by: Eric at March 24, 2006 10:11 AM (UHKaK)

20 Eric, you and I certainly agree that the ideal journalist ignores ideology when reporting, however, that's not how it works now in practice. In fact, most journalism schools acknowledge bias, though it isn't called that. That's why I've posted numerous times on the "evolution" of modern journalism: from interpretive reporting, which begat advocacy journalism, which is begetting agenda journalism, which is being legitmized by supposed experts in the field. See the blog PressThink, written by a journalism professor, which often plays with the idea of bias as a good thing in journalism. Since truly professional, unbiased journalism seems unattainable in today's America, we must ensure, at least, a healthy balance of ideology. Otherwise we're left with the way things were since Vietnam - with a journalistic elite who self-identify as "progressive" deciding what is news and how that news will be presented. Much of talk radio and half of the blogosphere are challenging this de facto monopoly.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 24, 2006 11:58 AM (RHG+K)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

March 18, 2006

When the Agenda Hits the Fan

The headline fairly drips with that patented New York Times air of moral superiority: Symbol of Abu Ghraib Seeks to Spare Others His Nightmare, and the copy is written in their smarmy and lugubrious the-evil-that-we-do style: more...

Posted by: Bluto at 10:22 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 290 words, total size 2 kb.

1 WOOMP there it is.. ~~The Newspaper of Record~~ The Newspaper of smarmy lugubrious evil-that-we-do style ht. pet jawas

Posted by: Rubin at March 18, 2006 10:58 AM (BrVW0)

2 For 86 years the NYT has not hesitated to print anything thay may make America or American ideals seem bad. They care not if it is a lie as long as it defames what America stands for. This is just one example of thousands of such fabrications. The all time best happened 70 years ago when they ran a series of fabrications about how great and loving ol Joe was. Got an America hating Pulitzer for them. These "news" stories have all been proved to be just stories since the fall aof the USSR. But the NYT did not care 70 years ago and do not care in 06. Anything to hurt America and Get Americans killed is front page "news" for the NYT; and has been since Woody was President. Give them credit for a consistent policy the last 86 years.

Posted by: Joe macDlugal at March 18, 2006 05:00 PM (2vpLj)

3 The NYT should be burned to the ground with all aboard, and in its place a monument erected to the millions who have died at the hands of murderers whose acts were shielded and excused by its lies.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 19, 2006 07:13 AM (0yYS2)

4 Do you support the actions of our troops at Abu Gharaib? The NYT is right about this one. There should be enough shame about Abu Gharaib for all Americans.

Posted by: Robert at March 19, 2006 03:15 PM (DY+i6)

5 Robert: Since the troops at Abu Ghraib who committed crimes were a tiny percentage of the total, and those were investigated and punished, of course I support the troops at Abu Ghraib, you repugnant weasel. The treasonous surrender monkeys at the Gray Lady have admitted that they were not right, so your comment makes sense only to imbecilic partisan Bush-haters who long for America's defeat...such as yourself.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 19, 2006 03:57 PM (RHG+K)

6 When the time comes, the best part about hanging liberals and muslims will not be the one on the rope, kicking and turning purple, but watching those in line as they ponder their fate. I pray that time comes soon.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 19, 2006 06:45 PM (0yYS2)

7 Improbulus Maximus, well said, I like the purple part.

Posted by: Rubin at March 19, 2006 07:16 PM (zvCwC)

8 Thanks Rubin. I should have written; ...as they ponder their fate, along with their sins. As we all know, the wages of sin is death.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 20, 2006 06:02 AM (0yYS2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

March 15, 2006

Botched Report From CBS Draws Fire of Danish Journalist

Samuel Rachin, a distinguished Danish journalist who follows the Old School (agendas are for meetings, not journalists) has blasted Bob Simon of CBS for his hatchet job on Denmark's Mohammed cartoon incident:

This kind of journalism does not have much in common with the tradition of Ed R. Murrow or what his associate, Fred Friendly, taught me at the Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia University when I took my degree there in the late 70ies. The snide asides and sarcasm that permeated the narrative do not mix with the high quality journalism I have learned to expect from 60 Minutes. What we got was a presentation so biased, distorted and corrupted by so many inaccuracies and innuendos that it was impossible to recognize Denmark. I am sorry to say it, but it is shameful for the profession that both Bob Simon and I belong to.

No big surprises here for Americans accustomed to what passes for reporting at the network of Dan Rather.

Of course, Simon may have been simply trying to excuse the cowardice of the American mainstream media, who have meekly allowed themselves to be censored by the Islamist movement.

Via The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto and Vince Aut Morire.

Posted by: Bluto at 02:15 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 225 words, total size 2 kb.

March 10, 2006

Reuters Isn't Biased

This picture of the Vice President under a "Retire" banner just happened by accident. And none of the eleventy-seven standard MSM editors noticed it by accident. Then it went out over the Reuters wire by accident. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Via the Drudge Report.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto and Vince Aut Morire.

Posted by: Bluto at 01:44 AM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 61 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I'm glad Drudge picked up on it with his circulation. Its something small but does speak a thousand words about Reuters, propaganda and their untrustworthyness. Frankly its just plain stupid.

Posted by: Javapuke at March 10, 2006 04:16 AM (lxHRs)

2 Amazing how they "accidentally" framed the word perfectly within the frame, and how they cut off the end of "retire" to fit it in there. Nice try, al-Reuters. Terrorist sympathizers and apologists would naturally want The Cheney to retire.

Posted by: Good Lt at March 10, 2006 05:19 AM (yT+NK)

3 This not long after the infamous "X". Who do they think they're kidding?

Posted by: Oyster at March 10, 2006 05:45 AM (YudAC)

4 Their tactics are childlike in their sophistication, and can only have effect on minds which are decidedly not adult, which means that they not only hope, but believe, that most Americans are stupid enough to buy their crap.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 10, 2006 07:45 AM (0yYS2)

5 It's just an "isolated incident."

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 10, 2006 08:53 AM (8e/V4)

6 Wow...who ever heard of editorializing through imagery? http://www.stewartsynopsis.com/white_global_identity_within_the.htm http://browndailysqueal.com/archives/week_2004_09_19.html

Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at March 10, 2006 09:24 AM (K5Ko+)

7 >>>who ever heard of editorializing through imagery? It's not the job of news reporters to editorialize. It's their job to report the facts. To the extent they do editorialize, they're falling down on the job. That's the MSM for you, bunch of incompetents Liberal who are more interested in "making a difference" then in doing their job.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 10, 2006 09:49 AM (8e/V4)

8 Noise's brother JD is on my site saying that it's just a random event and the MSM are actually not biased in the least. It's hard to deal with such delusional people.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 10, 2006 10:06 AM (RHG+K)

9 Bluto: I am pointing out that it IS editorializing... and that it has been going on for quite some time.

Posted by: Background Noise at March 10, 2006 10:42 AM (jsv7b)

10 Wow, we finally agree on something! See? There's hope.

Posted by: Oyster at March 10, 2006 10:56 AM (rf0W8)

11 noise, yes we know it's editorializing. It's also called bias. Such bias should be restricted to the Op/Ed section like it used to be. Not anymore though. Too many journalists want to "make a difference." Stupid ass Liberals disguising editoraliazing as straight news = MSM.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 10, 2006 11:19 AM (8e/V4)

12 Have you all lost your sense of humor entirely? Is it surgically removed when you join the The Conspiracy(tm)? 5 stars. Very funny, and also futile flailings, as is all the MSM can do these days.

Posted by: MiB at March 10, 2006 12:10 PM (VeYWn)

13 this man should do more than retire.Every decision emanting from this white house has been made by this man,an insider in the carlyle group and a member of the New american century or whatever,the group that said they needed a new "pearl harbor"to solidfy their goals.As a result,Bush is at the lowest point hes ever been in the polls.But do you think he cares?as long as the Carlyle gruop is raking in billions in defense money from this war and other deals,Bush is as happy as a lark!!

Posted by: dale at March 10, 2006 09:33 PM (bCVqJ)

14 So dale, do you think Cheney and the Carlyle Group cooked up 9/11 just so they could rake in all those war profits? I'll bet they sold their airline stock short on 9/10! Those bastards!

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 11, 2006 12:35 AM (RHG+K)

15 Dale, you forgot to mention that he is the global master of the space-alien/zionist cabal that is slowly enslaving us with flouridated drinking water. DON'T DRINK THE WATER!!!

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 11, 2006 12:54 AM (0yYS2)

16 3 things that are a fact my friends: 1.Bushes brother was running security for the world trade centers on 911 2.cheney told Norad to stand down as the planes were hijacked 3.the owner of the world trade center himself told the media that they "pulled the building"that day,implying a controlled demolition. these are the facts my friends,not a paranoid conspiracy theory,and please just the facts!!

Posted by: dale at March 11, 2006 11:22 AM (HBymQ)

17 dale: one of the NORAD officers, a major at the time, now a lt. colonel, on duty that day happens to be a member of my Tae Kwon Do dojang. Your "fact number 2" is not a fact. The simple truth is that there was neither the time nor the resources in place to react to what was at the time an unprecedented situation. The idea of a "controlled demolition" has been so thoroughly debunked that only a few loons and the Fwench lend the idea any credence. There's a link to pre-manufactured tinfoil beanies somewhere. I'll try to locate it for you.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 11, 2006 11:30 AM (RHG+K)

18 If I hear the words "controlled demolition", "conspiracy" and "9/11" in the same sentence one more time ..... Dale, get a life. 1) Have you forgotten the planes? The collapse of the twin towers began from exactly the point where the planes hit. They were not "pulled". 2) Bush's brother sat on the board of the company that provided electronic security. How is that equated to "running the security"? 3) The "pulled" comment was related to building 7. Yes, it's possible (and it seems likely) they rigged it from the bottom to "pull" it because they said they said it was futile to try to get the fire under control. If that's in fact what happened, it sounds like a smart move to me. And it came down AFTER it had been completely evacuated. How does this equate to a government conspiracy to kill 3,000 Americans? I won't even address your NORAD implication.

Posted by: Oyster at March 11, 2006 12:25 PM (YudAC)

19 The one who should realy retire in TED KENNEDY its about that fool resigned and let a better qualified person take over

Posted by: sandpiper at March 11, 2006 01:55 PM (qMAo+)

20 you say your friend said there wasnt the time or resources to react,very interesting my friend considering they were doing drills in the weeks leading up to 9-11 for that very same scenario,planes flying into buildings.of course bush and rice said they never expected terrorist to fly planes into buildings,hah!! a few more facts 1.silverstein is on video saying they pulled the building.it takes weeks to prepare for a demolition,not hours. 2.actual recorded transcripts from the fireman going up the towers showed they heard explosions going off all over the buildings,I have heard these myself 3.no less an expert than Bin Laden himself said 3-4 weeks after the event that he "did not order these attacks".

Posted by: dale at March 11, 2006 07:01 PM (XwnJS)

21 dale, you've made ten wild, unsupported assertions in positing a conspiracy that would have to include thousands of people in all branches of the military, scores of elected officials at the municipal, state, and federal levels, scores of first responders, scores of airline personnel from competing airlines, air traffic controllers and their supervisors, unnamed private demolition company employees... dale, if they're this well organized, how come they haven't killed you for spilling the beans? Is your last name Gribble? Please consult your local mental health professional.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 11, 2006 09:30 PM (RHG+K)

22 Dale, you might want to modify the dosage just a touch...

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 12, 2006 07:48 AM (0yYS2)

23 It only takes a few at the very top to pull something off like this you neo-con sheep,flying a couple planes into a building could be pulled off so easy its incredible.what are you,so brainwashed by fox news you beleive anything these braindead morons cook up.how much money do these greedy bastards need,my god,just look at Iraq,a complete and utter failure,yet cheney still sticks to his theory 911 was connected to iraq and there were weapons of mass destruction.Ask cheney to turn over the spreadsheets of the incredible profits halliburton is raking in at the same time some poor marine said he was billed for his own body armour!absolutely shameful,you'll beleive anything!!

Posted by: dlae at March 12, 2006 08:37 AM (6IZ/T)

24 Damn. Now that dale has invoked a Word of Power, (Fox News), all our zionist mind control devices are useless against his magic tinfoil helmet. We are vanquished. Bravo, well done old chap! Now back to conversation with the adults...

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 12, 2006 01:39 PM (0yYS2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

March 06, 2006

What's Missing From This Picture?

In their March 5 issue the editors of Time, fairly drooling at the prospect of an Iraqi civil war (guess they should have read Ralph Peters' piece) enlisted the aid of four "experts" to fill in the grim, grim picture.

The four: Noah Feldman, Vali Nasr, James Fearon, and Juan Cole are suitably grave, in keeping with the preferred MSM meme of a people who have been savaged by the brutal US government and teeter on the abyss due to the Bush administration's incompetence.

But something is missing here.

In 1,290 words (two printed pages in the hardcopy edition) discussing the "civil war" in Iraq, the words "terror", "terrorism", "terrorist", and "al Qaeda" (or even, "al Qaida") appear not once.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 06:03 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 137 words, total size 1 kb.

March 05, 2006

What if They Gave a Civil War and Nobody Came?

Ralph Peters of the New York Post has been scouring Baghdad, looking for the civil war. As Peters writes, it's being hidden well:

I'M trying. I've been trying all week. The other day, I drove another 30 miles or so on the streets and alleys of Baghdad. I'm looking for the civil war that The New York Times declared. And I just can't find it.
Maybe actually being on the ground in Iraq prevents me from seeing it. Perhaps the view's clearer from Manhattan. It could be that my background as an intelligence officer didn't give me the right skills.

If you didn't twig to the dig on the Gray Lady, there's more: more...

Posted by: Bluto at 03:28 PM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 377 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Oh, my, this story is sure to cause a nervous breakdown on the part of the Leftists. What, I say, what are they to do? Surely there is another angle they can explore. The civil war was a rolling battle that was always either ahead or behind the US troops on patrol in Bagdad. I think Bagdad Bob is working as a stringer for the New York Times.

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 05, 2006 04:08 PM (rUyw4)

2 Read on! He clearly points out what I've said months ago - the MSM is has been pulling a "Hunter Thompson" as far as on-site coverage. Forget the bias aspect of the MSM - their personal fear & cowardness has become so transparent to all.

Posted by: hondo at March 05, 2006 04:18 PM (fyKFC)

3 Kind of reminds me of the news media's opinion of how well the U.S military would fair in urban combat, because as we all know the strength of the military in the media's opinion is limited to "dropping bombs at a thousand feet on targets" Their estimates for Fallujah was a cross between a quagmire, and Ypres.

Posted by: dave at March 05, 2006 04:34 PM (CcXvt)

4 Okay no civil war - that's fine. If even if there was one, that's cool. Brown people killing brown people is okay. What about the things that matter? What about the American attrocities, the looting, the DU, the White Phosphorous, The Council on Foreign Relations?

Posted by: Graeme at March 05, 2006 04:41 PM (jeglL)

5 Oh if it wasn't for the propaganda. My goodness reality. There's no doubt how the overwhelming majority of Iraqis feel about freedom, as opposed to a small handful. I wanna add its not only the Leftist media's fear and cowardness, its their betrayal of America and Iraq. If this was Bill Clinton's war, the NYTimes would not be the enemy.

Posted by: Javapuke at March 05, 2006 05:17 PM (x5sst)

6 Is the New York Post a tabloid?

Posted by: Richard at March 05, 2006 07:11 PM (c7rNU)

7 Richard, yup. "Imperial stormtroopers of the Zionist Bushitlerburton Neocon Conspiracy" Now this is funny. How often do you see DUers and Kossacks take the names we give them and get creative like this? Where's their sense of humor? Their inventiveness? When have they ever even snidely referred to themselves as Tin Foil Hat Wearing Moonbat Colonists just to be funny? You know, if I had to pick one principal reason for not being a Democrat it would be because they just don't know how to have fun.

Posted by: Oyster at March 05, 2006 07:34 PM (YudAC)

8 Richard, The New York Post has yet to be caught fabricating documents and reporting fake stories.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 05, 2006 08:34 PM (xpnBq)

9 Richard has reservations about the Post for the same reason so many people liked Clinton; most people prefer a beautiful lie to the ugly truth.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 06, 2006 05:06 AM (0yYS2)

10 The New York Post isn't lying, but they are tabloid-ish.

Posted by: Oyster at March 06, 2006 06:31 AM (YudAC)

11 The doves are flying the vultures are dying

Posted by: sandpiper at March 06, 2006 03:14 PM (Zy1Y5)

12 The Post is published in a tabloid printing format, but it's not a National Enquirer style tabloid.

Posted by: MegaTroopX at March 07, 2006 01:37 PM (yT/Rw)

13 I read the "article" in the NY Post...simplistic and laughable at best. What did this guy expect to find ... blue and grays on horseback with Stonewall Jackson in the middle? The kind of sectarian, inter-nacine violence that has preceeded civil wars around the globe for decades is alive, well and documented, from the the far, far lefty Progressive to righty-loyalist Bill Kristol's Nation. And the Post columnist's fantasy of smiling throngs waving at US forces aside, no one doubts the potential for civil war--including Donald Rumsfeld. Sorry, but if the Post is an example of the best of non- or anti-MSM, we are, to quote Full Metal Jacket's Private Pyle, already in a world of shit.

Posted by: wavygravy at March 08, 2006 09:25 AM (UHKaK)

14 Should be William Kristol's National Review (see above.)

Posted by: wavygravy at March 08, 2006 01:12 PM (UHKaK)

15 wavygravy: do you have anything that directly impeaches Peters' firsthand, eyewitness article or are you just blowing typical moonbat partisan smoke? That was a rhetorical question, btw.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 08, 2006 01:20 PM (RHG+K)

16 I'm impeaching Peters' assertion that having people wave at you somehow means there is no civil war fomenting. And the fact he pretends to be the only journalist who's ever left the Green Zone. Several dead and mamed one could dispute the fact.

Posted by: wavygravy at March 08, 2006 02:25 PM (UHKaK)

17 Motion to impeach denied, on the basis that the counsel for the moonbats hasn't supplied any evidence to back the motion. Have a nice day.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 08, 2006 02:40 PM (RHG+K)

18 Let's see...how can I provide evidence that having people smile and wave means there's no civil war. Well, my neighbor smiled and waved at me as I left for work this morning, and didn't shoot me because I'm a Catholic. OK, I know when I'm beaten.

Posted by: wavygravy at March 08, 2006 02:51 PM (UHKaK)

19 Why not find a journalist who had the balls to ride around outside the green zone when Peters did who can counter what Peters reported? Failing that, you could talk to folks who have actually served or are currently serving in Iraq to see if what the MSM reports is accurate (not according to my friends and family in the war zone), but I suppose people like you don't associate with the commoners who actually fight the wars, do you? You're right. You lose.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 08, 2006 03:01 PM (RHG+K)

20 I see. Please clarify, in which war did you fight, commoner? I served from early 1980 to mid-1982 in the 563rd Combat Engineer Battalion in Ludendorf Kaserne Kornwesthiem--the 4th generation of my family to serve in the military including infantry in Korea and WWII. You?

Posted by: wavygravy at March 08, 2006 03:09 PM (UHKaK)

21 Typical. Tell me who you know who's currently serving in Iraq, not Germany, and what they're telling you to contradict Peters. Before you go too far with the Combat Engineer story; my son-in-law just finished his tour with a Combat Engineer unit. The BS detector will be set to maximum. FYI: I left a fairly lucrative advertising career and entered government service in 2003, where I was used as a human explosives detector until ruining my knee in late 2004. I'm still awaiting authorization for replacement surgery. So far, government service has cost me one knee and approximately $30,000 in salary differential vs. private sector earnings. What have you been doing since 9/11?

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 08, 2006 03:30 PM (RHG+K)

22 Oh, and my Dad eventually died in 1989, the result of the wound that earned him the Purple Heart on Okinawa. He was a Sergeant of Marines; enlisted at age seventeen. He also won the Bronze Star in action near Yontan airfield, also on Okinawa. His brother died in 1966 from malaria contracted in the South Pacific while serving in the Army.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 08, 2006 03:35 PM (RHG+K)

23 You want pictures of me working on roads and airfield improvements in the Divisional Engineer Battalion (DEB) of the 24th Infantry Division (CONUS), send me your personal e-mail address...I've got hundreds of 'em. Maybe you bullshit on the Web, I don't need to. And no, I haven't been a human explosives detector since 9/11, nor a food tester to the King, a crash test dummy or any other such heroics. I've been doing what' I've been doing for 18 years -- an adverising copywriter

Posted by: wavygravy at March 08, 2006 03:46 PM (UHKaK)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Crackdown On Leakers Has MSM Panties All Bunched Up

The Washington Post reports that:

The Bush administration, seeking to limit leaks of classified information, has launched initiatives targeting journalists and their possible government sources. The efforts include several FBI probes, a polygraph investigation inside the CIA and a warning from the Justice Department that reporters could be prosecuted under espionage laws.

Excellent news! It's past time for such a crackdown, as recent leaks of classified material to the New York Times amply demonstrate. more...

Posted by: Bluto at 01:03 AM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 308 words, total size 2 kb.

1 I agree with you it is excellent news, but I can't help to be sceptical anything substantial will result. I hope my pessimism proves very wrong. I would consider some of the leaks akin to treason and my opinion is if most Americans understood the motives, possible and actual consequences, they would agree.

Posted by: Javapuke at March 05, 2006 03:39 AM (JDPNl)

2 Hell yes is my first response, but then, I'm like JP above; I'll believe it when I see it.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 05, 2006 06:16 AM (0yYS2)

3 Here's another one...the Sixth Amendment this time: AP: Thousands of Federal Cases Kept Secret WASHINGTON - Despite the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of public trials, nearly all records are being kept secret for more than 5,000 defendants who completed their journey through the federal courts over the last three years. Instances of such secrecy more than doubled from 2003 to 2005.

Posted by: KarmiCommunist at March 05, 2006 09:16 AM (0y+ms)

4 KarmiCommunist, Did you even bother to read the next paragraph that says that most of the secrecy is for the purpose of witness protection? Have you considered the consequences of identifying, with pictures, no doubt, the people who testify against organized (or even not so organized) crime? Whose side does that put you on?

Posted by: OldGeek at March 05, 2006 09:42 AM (6ENow)

5 OldGeek, Yes, i read it; however, that info followed the article's subject, "Thousands of Federal Cases Kept Secret", and the opening paragraph, "Despite the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of public trials, nearly all records are being kept secret for more than 5,000 defendants...", and for obvious reasons the AP didn't want the facts up 'top'...so to speak of their headlines often being misleading. My point was to add to Bluto's point that MSM's "Panties All Bunched Up".

Posted by: KarmiCommunist at March 05, 2006 10:06 AM (0y+ms)

6 Perhaps all of these "leakers" should read the following post and realize that such actions were not always considered beneficial to the country.

Posted by: Tom at March 05, 2006 10:10 AM (EVTX6)

7 It's ironic, though not surprising, that the only time liberals get upset about an alleged violation of the Constitution is when it's for the good of the country. The rest of the time, when it's only about stifling speech, religion, and gun ownership, they're fine with it. As I've often repeated, liberals should all be shot.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 05, 2006 10:18 AM (0yYS2)

8 KarmicCommunist, I misunderstood! Perhaps another cup of coffee this morning will help my reading comprehension!

Posted by: OldGeek at March 05, 2006 10:38 AM (6ENow)

9 Good one, Tom.

Posted by: Oyster at March 05, 2006 11:12 AM (YudAC)

10 The Leftists and liberals are all for the US being a nation of laws until they violate one. Then that law MUST be wrong since it caught them, as the liberals constantly ignore and violate and encourage the violation of secrecy laws and immigration laws, among many others. They want a nation of laws only when it is the law they support. Hypocrits!

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 05, 2006 12:18 PM (rUyw4)

11 OldGeek, i write in a Dualistic mixture of Karmic and Babble, which i don't even understand 75% of the time.

MSM has been desperately trying to attack W on Constitutional levels/issues recently, since it seems that some of them may end up in Prison for breaking some serious Laws. Heck, they may even ask their sentencing Judge to seal their court records, before this is over!!!

))

Posted by: KarmiCommunist at March 05, 2006 12:40 PM (Wm4GU)

12 To JP's first: And as it is treason when these asshats are located, minimum they should be hung as soon as they complete one last mission. March them full circle around the world they're trying to destroy. Run them on foot through every state, where blood is red and spines not yellow. If they survive that, hang the basturds until they rot.

Posted by: forest hunter at March 05, 2006 06:48 PM (Fq6zR)

13 Great setup for entrapment! Call a reporter and leak some Unclassified material to them. Then hang up and stamp it Classified Â– puff, one more reporter gone. Its not just the American people this president wants to keep in the dark, the main target is Congress Â– how many times have you seen a senator stand at the podium waving a newspaper article because it was the only way THEY found out about something they should have been privy to in the first place. You have to hand it to Rove. Bush has classified more documents than any other President in history.

Posted by: Dahl Kaiser at March 06, 2006 10:13 AM (ooiag)

14 Uh, Mr. Kaiser(cute name), we aren't talking about your run of the mill article here, but about helping terrorists get around efforts to identify them. One hopes that the next time the terrorists strike it will be close to the NYT. And your allegation of entrapment is ridiculous on its face. That would be ex post facto and not subject to prosecution.

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 06, 2006 10:26 AM (rUyw4)

15 Ah, but jesusland kind sir, you assume the terrorists are stupid and knew nothing of our wiretaps. I have yet to see an article that would enlighten them. Ex post facto would not apply as back dating a document would be minor maleficents.

Posted by: Dahl Kaiser at March 06, 2006 10:54 AM (ooiag)

16 For one thing, how many times have we found that our illustrious congress critters and senators had not even read some of the documentation they're given? Too many of them are too intellectually lazy to educate themselves with what information they DO have at their disposal. Get real.

Posted by: Oyster at March 06, 2006 11:11 AM (n/nt4)

17 Point taken Mr. Oyster and agreed upon. Too many are indeed intellectually lazy and do not read the documents put before them or even read their internÂ’s summaries. Even more necessary to get their attention with headlines. To anyone who has been paying attention for the past five years, it should be clear that this administration will use all of the levels of power to achieve its goals including keeping a congress in the dark..

Posted by: Dahl Kaiser at March 06, 2006 11:49 AM (ooiag)

18 And the Clinton Administration was transparent! And I believe in the tooth fairy, and Santa Clause, and the Easter Bunny.

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 06, 2006 12:00 PM (rUyw4)

19 Of course not but they tried to ignored the press, they did not try to shut down the press. And yes, if you will excuse my being snippy, anyone who believes in the Bush Administration would indeed believe in the tooth fairy, and Santa Clause, and the Easter Bunny.

Posted by: Dahl Kaiser at March 06, 2006 12:24 PM (ooiag)

20 Who is trying to shut down the press? Snippy indeed, more like foolish.

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 06, 2006 06:14 PM (rUyw4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

March 04, 2006

AP 'Clarifies' Blunder

Here's what the Tampa Tribune said Thursday on the front page:

Bush Alerted To Levee Danger
From The Associated Press
Published: Mar 2, 2006
WASHINGTON - In dramatic and sometimes agonizing terms, federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees, put lives at risk in New Orleans' Superdome and overwhelm rescuers, according to confidential video footage.

more...

Posted by: Bluto at 11:52 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 269 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Assuming we give a damn what the AP says anymore.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 04, 2006 12:02 PM (8e/V4)

2 AP - Autorantic Piffle definition - A once occasional occurence of false or misleading information emanating from a news source which has grown to phenomenal proportions due to the ratio of indigenous, agenda-driven journalists to fact-driven journalists reaching a critical imbalance. The result is the automatic and uncontrolled bursts of extreme opinions taking on a life of their own and inserting themselves into recent historical accounts. They grow exponentially as said historical accounts go further back. (see bullshit)

Posted by: Oyster at March 04, 2006 12:35 PM (YudAC)

3 So the levees were not topped. Why then did they fail ? I think because they were not properly maintained or checked. What/which agencies are reponsible for maintaince of the levees ?

Posted by: john ryan at March 04, 2006 01:18 PM (TcoRJ)

4 john ryan, there is a patchwork of more than a dozen local Louisiana agencies charged with inspection and maintenance of the levee system. Corruption at that level is generally acknowledged to be ramapant.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 04, 2006 01:29 PM (RHG+K)

5 AP reports might be entertaining to birds whose cages are lined with papers that carry them, and to idiot moonbats, but nobody with any sense pays them any heed.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 04, 2006 04:06 PM (0yYS2)

6 The levee system was never really 'designed'; rather, it sort of evolved and grew over more than a century. Sometimes the levees were added on to without very good information on the preceding construction. Different groups designed, built and maintained different parts of the system over all those years, and even today. The Army Corps of Engineers has for some time had oversight authority on new design and construction (and seem to have not done it all that well), but actual construction and maintainance has always been in the hands of local political groups. Levee failures below the Industrial Canal seem to have been the result of just way too much water for too little levee - the things just washed out when topped. There seems to have been some degree of design and construction shortcuts there (poor soil type used, whether by design or otherwise) but it probably didn't matter - the areas would have flooded if they were built like the Hoover Dam. The canal levees that broke and flooded the main part of New Orleans seem to have collapsed under the pressure of the water - they weren't 'topped' by rising water, nor were they just washed out by water flowing over the top. They collapsed. Poor design? Seems at least partly to blame. Poor construction? No proof, but given local political corruption I would be surprised if it was not a factor. Poor maintainance? For sure. Dredging canals too deep and close. Failure to find pre-storm leaks (evidence of weak points), or even act on them when they were reported. It doesn't look like things are likely to change either. NOTHING could have been done between when Katrina entered the Gulf and when the water flooded the city that would have reduced the ultimate damage by a nickel. It would have taken a week or more even if you KNEW exactly what was going to happen and why (which obviously no one did know.) There's plenty to blame Bush for, but this is just not one of those things.

Posted by: Glenmore at March 04, 2006 04:20 PM (3Xc3/)

7 Aaaaahhhh - I'm waiting for the really big fight yet to come. A leevee system (which will always be fundamentally flawed and only a temporary measure) utilized to reclaim delta marshlands for .... Urban Sprawl? This is gonna be some fight - to rebuild or not rebuild! The potential pricetag will be beyond imagination with no guarantees.

Posted by: hondo at March 04, 2006 07:46 PM (fyKFC)

8 The taxpayer should not have to pay for the rebuilding of NO when we all know that a hurricane in the Cat3-5 range can form in the Gulf and hit NO every year. The land in and around NO cannot support a large city, and why would anyone want to build a home below sea level, anyway. Doesn't make economic sense to me.

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 04, 2006 10:54 PM (rUyw4)

9 NOLA should be converted to an actual landfill. After all, it has been functioning as a human landfill for a long time, so why not just send real garbage there?

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 05, 2006 06:33 AM (0yYS2)

10 AP tells another lie they should be made to appoligise not to bush but to the american people for lying to them

Posted by: sandpiper at March 05, 2006 02:11 PM (stdEd)

11 Adware remover free adware removal free adware. Adware download? Adware spyware remover anti adware adware spyware removal spyware Spyware Spyware Doctor, Anti Spyware Spyware Removal. Free Spyware Removal! Spyware Removal adware download anti adware remove adware spyware Spyware Blaster spyware Microsoft Anti Spyware adware se adware removal free adware remover. Adware se adware se? Spyware Remover Free Anti Spyware Spyware Removal. Anti Spyware adware download adware adware spyware removal? Free Spyware Removal Anti Spyware adware spyware remover? No adware Free Spyware adware se! Anti Spyware Free Anti Spyware free adware remover adware no adware ad adware Microsoft Anti Spyware adware spyware remover anti adware Spyware Doctor free adware remover Spyware Doctor adware spyware removal tool free adware remover adware spyware adware spyware removal tool adware spyware remover free adware remover. Free Spyware Remover Free Spyware Remover adware removal Spyware Blaster adware se Free Spyware Removal, adware 6 Free Anti Spyware adware download adware remover free adware Adware ad adware? No adware adware download lavasoft adware adware removal Spyware Blaster adware se adware spyware remover Spyware Blaster adware spyware removal adware removal spyware Spyware Blaster anti adware anti adware adware 6 adware 6 adware removal adware se adware 6 adware spyware spyware. Spyware Blaster spyware remove adware Free Spyware Remover adware se Free Spyware Remover. Adware 6 adware se anti adware adware se Spyware Doctor! Free Spyware Remover adware download? Spyware Anti Spyware Microsoft Anti Spyware adware download Free Anti Spyware free adware download adware spyware removal tool Free Spyware Remover adware 6 adware spyware remover Free Spyware Removal adware spyware removal adware 6 lavasoft adware anti adware adware spyware removal tool adware removal free adware download free adware! Free Spyware Remover, Free Anti Spyware adware se free adware download Anti Spyware Free Spyware Removal adware spyware removal tool spyware adware spyware remover free adware remove adware adware spyware removal adware 6 lavasoft adware adware remover Spyware Remover, adware spyware removal adware 6 Free Spyware adware spyware remover Spyware Blaster free adware remover. Adware spyware adware spyware removal tool adware Spyware Removal adware spyware adware se anti adware Spyware lavasoft adware free adware remover free adware download adware spyware removal tool no adware, anti adware adware spyware adware 6. Adware download no adware Free Anti Spyware remove adware lavasoft adware, free adware adware removal Free Anti Spyware adware spyware free adware? http://1-spyware.net/ http://1-spyware.net/spyware http://1-spyware.net/adware Spyware SPYWARE Adware

Posted by: Spyware Doctor at April 03, 2006 06:35 PM (fjUf0)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

February 25, 2006

Rubbing It In - Jyllands-Posten Wins Prize For Cartoons

From News24.com:

Copenhagen - Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, which angered the Muslim world by publishing cartoons of Prophet Muhammad last year, has won a Danish critical journalism award for its initiative, the jury said.
Denmark's largest daily was honoured with the Victor Prize for "having opened everyone's eyes by showing how easy it is to introduce cracks in freedom of expression and how so-called political correctness is infiltrating what we believe to be inalienable rights," Hans Engell, the editor of tabloid Ekstra Bladet which awards the prize, said during a prize ceremony in Copenhagen late on Thursday.

By rights, editor Carsten Juste should also be receiving the Medal of Freedom from the hand of President George W. Bush. Once again, the Danes have shamed the American mainstream media, whose delicate sensibilities have censored the cartoons in America.

Via Michelle Malkin.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto and Vince Aut Morire.

Posted by: Bluto at 12:14 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 167 words, total size 1 kb.

February 15, 2006

An Arrogance of Power

I'll let David Ignatius of the Washington Post write the opening paragraph for me, with just a couple of minor changes:

There is a temptation that seeps into the souls of even the most righteous ~~politicians~~ journalists and leads them to bend the rules, and eventually the truth, to suit the political needs of the moment. That arrogance of power is on display with the ~~Bush administration~~ American mainstream media.

Ignatius is writing, of course, about the MSM's hysterical behavior in the aftermath of Vice President Dick Cheney's hunting accident, though he thinks he's writing about the incident itself.

This is a press corps suffering a collective psychotic break, completely out of control; willing to do anything to reach its frustrated political goals. more...

Posted by: Bluto at 11:14 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 347 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Still trying to determine what kind of choke Cheney was using on that 28ga gun He seems to have gotten close to 50% of his pellets (100-200) in an 18" ring at 30 yards. I myself have never gone over "improved cylinder" especially on something as fast as quail that I need a wide coverage on. On a lighter note I always get a little skeptical when news reports identify someone as "third hunter present". Also the owner of the ranch was quoted as saying alcohol was consumed. I don't know how Mrs Cheney feels about all of that, but I can tell you how a Mrs Ryan might feel about me going drinking and fishing with a babe 25 years younger than me. ouch !!

Posted by: john ryan at February 15, 2006 01:16 PM (TcoRJ)

2 Here's the inside story from my friends in the vast rightwing conspiracy. Cheney was doing shots from Mrs. Armstrong's navel while Dick's lesbian daughter watched. The Veep, staggering from the massive amounts of alcohol he had consumed, and with a used condom hanging from his zipper, twisted his gun's choke to maximum and deliberately shot his buddy because of a love triangle, then tried to get Mrs. Armstrong to cover the entire incident up. The plan was to helicopter the body to Massachusetts and throw it over the Chappaquidick bridge in an effort to implicate Teddy Kennedy, who was having a lurid homosexual affair with Barney, the Presidential scotty dog. Fortunately, an intrepid reporter at the Corpus Christi Caller-Times was able to penetrate the plot by cleverly listening to a call from Mrs. Armstrong and the whole scheme blew up in Cheney's face. Does that satisfy your hatred, john ryan? Did you get a chubby reading it?

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at February 15, 2006 03:55 PM (RHG+K)

3 A self-proclaimed Buddhist - that hunts? What's wrong with this picture.

Posted by: hondo at February 15, 2006 03:57 PM (fyKFC)

4 Cheney's daughter is a ....... lesbian! Wow! Sounds like grounds for resignation or impeachment to me!

Posted by: hondo at February 15, 2006 03:59 PM (fyKFC)

5 If ya can't get victory - you might as well settle for a chubby - or a reasonable flacid facimile.

Posted by: hondo at February 15, 2006 04:02 PM (fyKFC)

6 He' hunting for his mind and a place to bury before the wretched stench brings on Grizzl E Bear. The NYT has been covering his quest. They quoted him as he ran over a ridge and away from his mind "There's a gland in my organ! There's a gland in my organ!" Fade to a weenie Deanie sheep call.....EEEEEEAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!

Posted by: forest hunter at February 16, 2006 02:15 AM (Fq6zR)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

February 14, 2006

Press Goes All Islamic On White House Over Veep's Accident

While the world marvels at the grotesquely disproportionate spoiled-child reaction of Muslims to the Danish Mohammed cartoons, American journalists are staging their own tantrum.

The Washington Post angrily sulks in an editorial today about the delay in getting out information about Dick Cheney's shooting accident:

The shooting wasn't disclosed until Sunday morning, when Katharine Armstrong, a member of the family that owns the ranch, called the Corpus Christi Caller-Times and the paper posted the story on its Web site in the afternoon after confirming the account with Mr. Cheney's office. Until then, the White House and the vice president's office were mum. By every standard and by all accounts, the failure to promptly disclose the accident was wrong.

But wait:

And the Secret Service reportedly notified the local sheriff's office of the incident on Saturday, according to the New York Times.

They did? and nobody in the vaunted mainstream media was bothering to monitor local police reports in the area where the Veep was known to be taking R&R? Really? And now they're all steamed that a minor story slipped past them because, they weren't doing their jobs. more...

Posted by: Bluto at 11:42 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 343 words, total size 3 kb.

1 So this is the dem strategy to turn the red states blue? I hope they beat this to death, wonÂ’t get them one vote. It only makes me more disgusted with the MSM than I already am.

Posted by: Brad at February 14, 2006 12:18 PM (3OPZt)

2 My first thoughts exactly. Notify them? Why? Isn't it their job to keep an eye and an ear open? You snooze, you lose. It all comes under the rather large general heading of "tough shit."

Posted by: mojo at February 14, 2006 12:28 PM (LJxI8)

3 I would like to personnally invite the VP hunting this spring. Mushroom hunting that is. No really quail hunting is dangerous and it always happens when a stray bird flushes late and some guy takes a shot. It's a common natural mistake. Now for me the flush scares the crap out of me anyway,so by the time I get over that they are long gone. But I can always stretch the limit for others. Shit happens.

Posted by: Howie at February 14, 2006 01:17 PM (D3+20)

4 First, just because the press claims a (disputable) public right to know anything about political or public figures even if it is unrelated to their job performance and just because the press claims (with obvious falsity) to represent the public, that does not create a positive duty on the part of people of interest to the media to immediately inform the media of every event in their lives. Second, the comparison of the press' tantrum to the Islamists' tantrum is odious. If you are trying to make the point that what is wrong with the riots over cartoons is that they were rioting instead of speaking about their disagreement, turning that around within days to use rioting as a metaphor of speaking about a disagreement is at least counterproductive.

Posted by: Jeff Medcalf at February 14, 2006 01:44 PM (eer2X)

5 I was struck by the fact that the press corps wants all their questions answered for them by McClellan. Reporters do not expect to do any footwork anymore. They were even expecting McClellan to advise them on fine legal points concerning Texas laws. They seem to be very slothful and whiny, just like my 15 year old.

Posted by: Pat at February 14, 2006 01:55 PM (rPpzF)

6 Leave it to the usial birdcage linners to write all sorts of roten editorials and expect the usial sriblers that write those crappy cartoons in the newspapers to draw the usial crap

Posted by: sandpiper at February 14, 2006 02:02 PM (162Hn)

7 Jeff, the metaphor is about wildly disproportionate overreaction, not rioting per se. And isn't it time the Postal workers caught a break, I mean, "going postal" is just so...twentieth century.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at February 14, 2006 03:58 PM (RHG+K)

8 I thought the postal workers were back on their meds, till a few weeks ago. Jeff, even lawyers should get some respect. The guy's 78 years old. Whadda ya figure he might have some family out there somewhere in the real world. Shouldn't there "right to know" supersede yours, or are people like you far more important than I was aware of.

Posted by: forest hunter at February 14, 2006 04:26 PM (Fq6zR)

9 Now that the story is firmly lodged in the MSM, I can reveal that this has been one of The Architect's better schemes to cause the Press to reveal their bias. Excellent.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at February 14, 2006 06:09 PM (RHG+K)

10 Gentlemen please, less of the hypocrisy. Fact, Cheney shoots another hunter. Fact, Cheney does not possess the relevant license/permit. Fact, no official statement is made until well after the fact! Fact, the injured party is in intensive care folowing a heart attack with pellets close to his heart. Fact, were it a democrat holding the gun, you lot would would be calling for his incarceration. Should the unjured party lose his life, God forbid, I hope that Cheney faces the full weight of the law. I am a republican. I cant abide by double standards. Where I come from, the man carrying the gun is responsible for the safety of those around him. Leave the press out of it as they were not pulling the trigger.

Posted by: clr at February 15, 2006 06:46 AM (gbpql)

11 Maybe he was suffering flasbacks from the 'nam and thought he was facing 'charlie'... oh wati.

Posted by: Mike at February 15, 2006 08:51 AM (KEB2O)

12 clr: Fact, if a Democrat had been holding the gun this would have been a one day story in the MSM; see the Teddy Kennedy files. Fact, where you come from, no one is allowed to own a gun. Fact, you are not a "republican" unless you mean "irish republican".

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at February 15, 2006 10:08 AM (RHG+K)

13 Dread Your last comment doesn't warrant a response. Dont know where you hail from but my guess is that is some small one horse town. Now that you have a computer and discovered that there is a world outside your state, you think you know everything. As for your rant and rave against the "MSM" as you call them: well that says it all. The "MSM" more often than not get it wrong and of course some of them a have a political agenda. You and other bloggers like yourself are equally as bad, presenting your "spin" as though it was Gospel. The difference is that the press questions the government, something that we should be glad of. You are nothing more than a mouthpiece for the government and not a particularly good one at that. As for your crass comment on gun ownership and the IRA proves the point that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" Before making anymore stupid comments in the future ( quite sure that it wont be too long now) make sure that you have all the facts. Cretin

Posted by: clr at February 17, 2006 05:14 AM (gbpql)

14 clr: I thought you said it didn't warrant a response? Just for your general fund of knowledge, when you comment on a blog, the bloggers can see your IP, and thus, where you're posting from. Now, one point on which I agree with you: as the shooter, Cheney is responsible. Guess what? Cheney agrees, too.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at February 17, 2006 06:38 PM (RHG+K)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

February 13, 2006

Weekly Standard Prints Mohammed Cartoons

The Weekly Standard has reproduced Jylland-Posten's Mohammed cartoons, accompanied by this Editor's Note from William Kristol:

TO ACCOMPANY the editorial in the new issue of THE WEEKLY STANDARD, we have reproduced the page with the Mohammed cartoons from the September 30 Jyllands-Posten. Readers should be able to see what this controversy is about. More important, in light of recent instances of capitulation to the threats of radical Islamists, and in response to eloquent pleas by individuals like Walid-al-Kubaisi in Norway to publish the cartoons in order to protect freedom of expression, we wanted to do our small part to stand against intimidation by extremists.

--William Kristol

Will this be enough to shame the quivering quislings in America's mainstream media into doing their jobs? That remains to be seen. more...

Posted by: Bluto at 12:12 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 152 words, total size 1 kb.

1 No it won't be enough. But enough for me to maintain a healthy respect for the Weekly Standard.

Posted by: Javapuke at February 13, 2006 12:30 AM (pcEQy)

2 Within a week, WEEKLY Standard will cave when CAIR sends the lions... just a prediction...

Posted by: Ariya at February 13, 2006 01:12 AM (uxW3N)

3 Kristol's rationalization of publishing the anti-Islamic "cartoons" is a thinly veiled attempt to insult an entire religion and it's followers. The cartoons are similar to those used by the Nazi's to dehumanize the Jews in the 1930's.

Posted by: Bert OMalley at February 13, 2006 01:20 AM (U+3Ku)

4 Actually, Bert, they're not even close. If you want to see Nazi-style cartoons you have to read the Islamic media - any day of the week. Haven't you noticed all the Jews marching around burning embassies over them? No? Pinhead.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at February 13, 2006 01:23 AM (RHG+K)

5 Hey Bert, does your muslim boyfriend have you bleat like a sheep while he's using you like a woman? Do you like it? Yeah you do, you bad girl you.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 13, 2006 05:12 AM (0yYS2)

6 Given the way CAIR has been running around suing and intimidating media groups and employees for the last few years, The Weekly Standard had to have known that they would be targeted for this. Hopefully that means that they intend to stand firm on the issue. No reasonable person can say they aren't right for doing so. The public has a right to know what all the fuss is over. If the public has a right (supposedly) to know every trick in the intelligence gathering book, why shouldn't they know all about this controversy. Good move, Kristol

Posted by: Graeme at February 13, 2006 05:21 AM (dwsnL)

7 Bill Kristol and Freddie "The Beatle" Barnes Rock. I'm heading for the news stand now. Oh wait we don't have those here. I was impressed http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/157072.php So now I have to buy a copy.

Posted by: Howie at February 13, 2006 08:07 AM (D3+20)

8 Interesting to note the video released by the Brit Press showing Brit soldiers beating Iraqis. Now, this is also FREEDOM OF THE PRESS - this is in fact a proud showing of British democracy. Britain has a Press that has FREEDOM from its government and uses that freedom in spite of the fact that thousands upon thousands of Brits will be deeply offended, affected and hurt and claim that it places Brit lives in jeapardy. Yes, it does place Brit lives in danger, it does affect the family and friends of those in Iraq and it does paint a black picture and if you read the comments on the BBC, this has been criticised by the general public as "unpatriotic", "treachery", "dangerous" and "inconsiderate of the soldiers". Some promised never to buy the paper again. Now, do you see the Brit public out rioting, burning property, threatening the press with bombs, abducting and threatening murder? Nope. This highlights the difference only too well between a tolerant democracy and a society ruled by dictatorial evil vicious religion.

Posted by: Brit Bulldog at February 13, 2006 08:52 AM (VSGms)

9 Maybe you are being clever or maybe you are just plain missing the point. The MSM/DNC supports the MuslimFascists. Has supported them for 50 years. It is why they do not want us to be drilling Alaska. Do you think it is hapenstance that Al Gore is speaking against America from the heart of OPEC?!@#?! Or that one of the MSM/DNC's heroes is the MuslimFascist Ralph Nader?!@#%?

Posted by: Rod Stanton at February 13, 2006 09:11 AM (lwdxR)

10 Cartoons cartoons cartoons. When MSM published the photos coming out of abu Ghraib prison many felt that they were endangering the lives of our troops by inciting the muslims. Are these cartoons in any way helping us in Iraq ? Should this still be a concern ?

Posted by: john ryan at February 13, 2006 12:28 PM (TcoRJ)

11 I've got great respect for the Weekly Standard and Bill Kristol. I hope they won't have to stand alone when CAIR comes knocking. Silence on this issue is tantamount to acceptance of muslim intimidation and their attack on free speech.

Posted by: Richard at February 13, 2006 01:20 PM (W8EsU)

12 Unlike the liberal rags THE WEEKLY STANDARD has printed the cartoons becuase they dont print TOM TOLES crap

Posted by: sandpiper at February 13, 2006 01:40 PM (AFJdY)

13 The mere fact that we have a headline "Small Newspaper Publishes Inoffensive Scribbles" speaks volumes about the the whole sorry CartoonGate affair. Every pussy editor and news director that failed in their public duty to show the toons should resign and try a different profession where they won't be so easily intimidated, like teaching pre-schoolers finger painting or something. Worthless, gutless f#@@#@#ers.

Posted by: Islamophobic at February 14, 2006 08:02 AM (TzVZy)

14 Do whatever you can do BASTARDS! You all know that Islam is the only divine religion. Your religion is DIED. You tried to kill Jesus. God damned all of you! So... You'll DIE! Your place will be HELL! And i think that you know all of these. So you malign Islam and Muslims.

Posted by: Turk_Guy at February 17, 2006 03:59 AM (K+4Gq)

15 Thank you for standing up for a free press! Denmark is right! We must not practice self-censorship to appease radicals! What a disappointment that America, of all places, for the most part, refused to take a stand and show support for Denmark!

Posted by: E. McMullen at March 19, 2006 08:34 AM (nlQch)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

196kb generated in CPU 0.0588, elapsed 0.2034 seconds.
134 queries taking 0.1621 seconds, 546 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

April 19, 2006

April 13, 2006

April 11, 2006

April 04, 2006

April 03, 2006

March 31, 2006

March 26, 2006

March 24, 2006

March 23, 2006

March 18, 2006

March 15, 2006

March 10, 2006

March 06, 2006

March 05, 2006

March 04, 2006

February 25, 2006

February 15, 2006

February 14, 2006

February 13, 2006

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds