The Command Post Op-Ed Page

Washington Post's anti-American propaganda

Harold Meyerson of the Washington Post offers “A Deportation Tragedy” which, among other things, promotes Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)'s Dream Act. That Act is an illegal alien amnesty plan that would also let illegal aliens pay for college at the reduced, in-state rate. Meanwhile, U.S. citizens who want to attend a college in another state would continue to pay the full rate.

Leaving aside its amnesty provisions, here's a chart summarizing the Dream Act:

some illegal aliens: discount
some U.S. citizens: full price

In other words, the Dream Act is explicitly anti-American: we should not be giving citizens of other countries a better deal than our own citizens. (Thankfully, a similar state law in Kansas is currently being challenged: “Suit challenges in-state tuition for illegal immigrants”. The Dream Act would be a national version of state laws in Kansas, California, and other states.)

What makes Meyerson's bleeding heart screed interesting is that articles like this are hardly unique. Newspapers large and small from one end of the country to the other have published what amount to advertisements for the Act, and all of them seem to follow the same formula.

Here are just a few examples:
“Best & brightest in bind” (NY Daily News)
Dozens rally to support proposed immigration law (Lincoln Neb. JournalStar)
“Behind Top Student's Heartbreak, Illegal Immigrants' Nightmare” (NY Times)
Group rallies in support of Dream Act (Brownsville Tex. Herald)
(other examples in my pro-illegal immigration puff piece category)

For an example of how formulaic these tales are, here's a quote from Meyerson:

next Tuesday Marie and her parents will move to a country she doesn't know.

A search for country “dream act” “hardly know” reveals 53 hits, and a similar search brings up 27.

To my knowledge, no newspaper has yet looked for the story behind the story and reported on the source(s) for all these barely-concealed advertisements. If you'd like to suggest that the WaPo does some real reporting rather than just propagandizing, (or if you'd like to suggest that they might want to start a private fund to pay for illegal aliens' college educations), please contact:
meyersonh at washpost.com
ombudsman at washpost.com

UPDATE: Shortly after I posted this, the student mentioned in Meyerson's ad got a reprieve. However, her parents are still due to be deported: “Teen Wins 1-Year Delay in Deportation”.

Newsweek's Malfeasance & Media Bias

[Robin Burk's assistance and additions to this article are appreciated]

Reader SAO writes in to ask why we aren't covering the Newsweek story, which incited the deaths of at least 15 people over a poorly-checked, irresponsible report that the magazine itself now admits is probably false. Me, I'm wondering why no-one on Newsweek's staff saw the potential problems with this report at the time, as Glenn Reynolds and others did. Immediately:

“The press is exquisitely sensitive to the risks posed by, say, racial insensitivity in reporting. It's too bad they're not so careful with regard to things that might get American troops killed.”

If they did see the problems, why didn't that stop the story, an act that would have carried zero consequences? And if they didn't see those obvious problems, we've got to ask - why not?

Veteran journalist Joe Gandelman has a roundup of reactions left and right, and specifically notes that making these kinds of allegations is part of the al-Qaeda training manual; this makes apologists' references to “similar allegations from other prisoners” rather rich, IMO. Greyhawk adds an excellent post on similar but debunked allegations in the past and the possible origins of Newsweek's story. In the aftermath, Jeff Jarvis has a fine point to make about Newsweek's mischievous CBS-style non-retraction - which is likely to get even more people killed now. Satirist Scott “Scrappleface” Ott is funny as always, and Glenn's post-“retraction” roundup offers a fine back and forth getting at the issues and responsibility. Responsibility that includes religious sects who see incitement to violence and murder as an acceptable response in such situations (not in Iraq, says Omar).

Media double standards and malfeasance? Ya think? But those double-standards matter. They go to the heart of the reason why nobody said 'wait a minute' at Newsweek, why the subsequent insincere “apology” bordered on malice - and why that liberal media continues to be surprised at surveys like this one from UConn:

Read the Rest…

Los Angeles Times: Covering for Commies

The Los Angeles Times has a tradition of lying about the true ideologies and affiliations of far-left groups and individuals. The latest example is particularly odious.

The Save Our State organization held a protest on Saturday at the monument in Baldwin Park CA discussed here (Note that the monument is on public property).

From SOS's report:

...Numerous times we were told that this land is Mexico and that they were taking it back. Numerous times racists epithets were hurled away. One person even hurled a full water bottle at our side and sent one of our activists to the hospital with bleeding in the brain. Unfortunately, she is now in the intensive care unit and we are all praying and hoping for the best.

What started as a rather peaceful and uneventful protest on our side ended in sheer hostility. The counter demonstrators were supposed to rally at the other end of the metrolink station, but proceeded to outflank the Baldwin Park Police Department and traveled through a local neighborhood so that they could formally confront us at the intersection allocated to us for our protest.

In waves they came. Soon outnumbered 500-50 in a community that is 85% Hispanic, crowd control soon became an issue. Rants, chants and Mexican flags filled the air. Their spit and a dragged and kicked American flag covered the ground. It is imperative to note that that was the only American flag displayed by our opponents...

Several links about this event, including pictures and video, are here, here, here, and here. You'll note the signs from the Los Angeles branch of ANSWER, the San Gabriel Valley Neighbors for Peace and Justice, and the International Socialist Organization. ANSWER's announcement of the protest is here and here.

In case you think SOS's report might be overstated, here's a report from one of the protesters:

How did the counter-demo go? We vastly out numbered them and succeeded in driving them away. We won and won big.

After an opening demo with the Aztec Dancers and the City Council, we marched to near where SOS was. The police had barricaded the areas between us. After an hour or so, we went down side streets and confronted SOS directly. They were on one corner, maybe fifteen left, down from a maximum of about fifty. We were on the other three corners, several hundred strong. with 40 police in between. We moved into the intersection. I wasn't sure what the cops would do, so I scanned the side streets for approaching phalanxes of police. But none appeared. We began chanting 'we won't leave until they leave.' And then, to great cheers, the police ordered SOS to leave.

We won! They won't be back to Baldwin Park. I expect this type of confrontation will escalate dramatically in size during the coming summer. People get ready. ( polizeros.com/2005/05/15.html#a5412 )

How did the Los Angeles Times cover this? Read "Protest Over Art Forces Police to Draw the Line" to see their take. The report from David Pierson and Patricia Ward Biederman mentions the confrontation, but only devotes one sentence to a 66 year old woman getting hit in the forehead with a full bottle of water. Further, if you hadn't seen the pictures, videos, and read the other reports you might think it was just one big party for peace and justice:

...Opponents of Save Our State consisted mainly of young adults who said they sent e-mails to Latino and immigrant worker advocacy groups. Many were politically active teenagers and college students who skateboarded to the scene...

David Pierson and Patricia Ward Biederman even describe ANSWER LA as an "antiwar and anti-racism group" without any quotes or hedging. Here's a description of International ANSWER, ANSWER LA's parent group:

International A.N.S.W.E.R. (often, simply ANSWER) is a front group for the Marxist-Leninist Workers World Party (WWP), which uses the anti-war movement as the vehicle by which it promotes Communist ideals and condemns American society, American foreign policy, and capitalism...

Read what lefties David Corn and Marc Cooper have to say about International ANSWER.

The L.A. Times report appears to be the source for an AP report ("Baldwin Park public artwork angers group opposed to illegal immigration") that's appeared in several dozen newspapers since the incident, some even today. All those reports incorrectly state that no one was injured.

There's more on the L.A. Times' report and on the groups involved here.

Please contact readers.rep *at* latimes.com and feedback *at* ap.org with your thoughts on their coverage.

UPDATE: The LAT published a blurb from "a Times Staff Writer" stating that the victim had been observed overnight in an ICU. It also says that police are investigating the attack as an assault with a deadly weapon.

Also, the second paragraph of the main LAT article says that the protest was announced on the John and Ken Show (KFI 640AM Los Angeles). On their show, John and Ken say that that's false. The protest and the monument were discussed on two other KFI shows, but not theirs. They contacted one of the reporters and were told that a correction would be printed. Apparently the reporter was told that by one of the SOS protesters and didn't confirm it.

5/23/05 UPDATE: This page has more photos and video. "Antiwar and anti-racism group" indeed.

Annoy The Guardian - Vote for Harry's Place!

The PRO-liberation left-wing bloggers at Harry's Place are in the running for The Guardian's political commentary blog awards. Here's where you can vote, and return the favour to The Guardian for Operation Clark County during the 2004 U.S. elections.

UAS LTC Slams Mainstream Media

From the World Tribune :

All right, I've had enough. I am tired of reading distorted and grossly exaggerated stories from major news organizations about the “failures” in the war in Iraq. “The most trusted name in news” and a long list of others continue to misrepresent the scale of events in Iraq. Print and video journalists are covering only a fraction of the events in Iraq and, more often than not, the events they cover are only negative.

The inaccurate picture they paint has distorted the world view of the daily realities in Iraq. The result is a further erosion of international support for the United States' efforts there, and a strengthening of the insurgents' resolve and recruiting efforts while weakening our own. Through their incomplete, uninformed and unbalanced reporting, many members of the media covering the war in Iraq are aiding and abetting the enemy.

Read the whole thing.

Citizens' Media in 2005: A Year to Dream Big

How about a little kerosene for the fire? Consider this post as a counterpoint to A.L's On Blogs and Media. Joe's Why 2004 Was the Year of the Blog also covered this subject on Dec. 31st. A.L's article and the ensuing discussion might be considered normative: 'What should be'. Here I'm putting on my Venture Capital Analyst and Futurist hats to go more in-depth and take a descriptive stance: 'What is and might be'.

• The Power Law of Individuation and “The Long Tail”
• The War of Media Attrition
• Probing the Lines: Where Are the Weak Spots?

So Much For Supporting Our Troops

Liberals' Veneer of Patriotism Collapses Again

You all know the story. A Marine was in Fallujah in a room with dead and wounded terrorists. He shot one to death. It looks like—“looks like”—the terrorist was unarmed. And the liberal establishment media response? “Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!” The coverage is almost universally unfavorable, as was the premature airing of the video.

Val Prieto has a great collection of links you can click, if you want to see the blogdom response. He linked to blogs of soldiers and veterans, which was a good idea. You know. Blackfive, Sgt. Hook, Baldilocks, and so on.

Now, here is my simple question: what ever happened to “WE SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!”?

Hmm…here we have a grunt in the field. Not Donald Rumsfeld. Not Paul Wolfowitz. Not George Bush. And he made a split-second decision to kill an enemy combatant, in an environment where terrorists have been pretending to be dead so they could ambush and kill coalition soldiers. Isn't he…part of our “TROOPS”?

No, I guess not. I guess he's a BABY-KILLER! Come on, say it, liberals! You know you want to! BABY-KILLER! I mean, granted, the guy he killed was a dirty old terrorist, but “DIRTY-OLD-TERRORIST-KILLER” just doesn't roll off the tongue, especially after a few dozen puffs of the herb.

People, the left does not support our troops. They don't really see the troops as helpless, uneducated dupes who can't see through George Bush's magical screen of smoke and mirrors. They know perfectly well that soldiers and sailors are overwhelmingly conservative, and the smarter leftists also know that without military votes, George Bush would never have been elected President. That's why Bill Clinton and Al Gore worked so hard to prevent military personnel from voting and from having their cast votes counted.

I have to tell you—and I am truly sorry I didn't write about this earlier, because I wanted to, and I have no excuse—I am floored by the selflessness and courage of our troops in Fallujah and Mosul. I'm always awed by the courage of our soldiers at war, but in my mind, these troops are even more impressive. We are taking dozens of casualties, and we expected that beforehand, and by all accounts, our fighting men and women were not just willing but eager to get in there and get started.

God bless every one of them. Quite simply, they are better people than I am.

How do you thank people with hearts like that? The thought of it actually brings tears to my eyes. How do you thank someone who accepts low pay and unbearable working conditions in exchange for marching into hell's very mouth?

The very idea that spoiled liberal brats are condemning this brave soldier before they know the facts—it makes me wish we could flog them.

In the video of the incident, it's clear the Marine feared for his life. He shouted that the terrorist was faking death. To any sane, reasonable person, that is prima facie evidence that the shooting was justified. If you love our troops so much, why won't you let this man make his case before you air the video and condemn him? You'd do that for the Fedayeen Saddam, you America-hating morons. Implicitly, you're doing it for the dead terrorist in this story. Why can't you do that for for a man who is risking his life so you can have the right to sit here on your fat, comfortable asses and criticize him?

And what exactly is the brain deformity that caused NBC reporter Kevin Sites to air this video in the first place? He was in the room when it happened, depending on the accused Marine to keep him alive. Is this liberal gratitude? If you hired a brain trust and had them sit down for a month with nothing else to do, could they imagine a more egregious example of biting the hand that feeds you?

In World War Two, to name but one example, journalists witnessed military errors and misdeeds all the time. But they understood that war is not peacetime, and that a certain degree of wartime self-censorship was necessary, morally correct, and patriotic. Our modern liberal press has no such understanding. They sniff that journalists are supposed to be “above” patriotism. And so we end up with G.I.'s losing their lives because our treacherous press insists on airing items like the shooting video and the Abu Ghraib photos.

Don't perpetuate the lie that news has to be reported quickly. If that's true, why did Dan Rather wait until fall of an election year to unveil his bogus anti-Bush documents? That story was in the work for months. There was no reason to air the Fallujah video before the facts were known. In truth, there was no reason to air it at all. NBC could have reported the story using objective speech instead of an inflammatory video our enemies will use as a recruiting tool.

Remember how furious MSM flunkeys were back in 2001, when American flags started appearing on the lapels of newsreaders and analysts? That should have told us something. That should have told us these people had the moral fiber of babies with wet diapers.

If there is a silver lining to this story, which will needlessly subject our country and our troops to more violence, it is that it will serve to expose and irreversibly confirm the left's hatred of our men and women in uniform.

Blog it all you can. We whipped Dan Rather's ass, and we'll whip NBC's, too.

The PC Media on the Battlefield

This OpEd was written by Jay Bagley and originally appeared here. It is reprinted with permission of the author.

Recent military battles have been party to unprecedented media coverage. I believe that while this media coverage has been great for television ratings, media has in fact hindered the military operations that it has been covering.

William Tecumseh Sherman once said “War is hell” and quite often the acts of man fighting in wars are hellish. That hellish side of war is at times a necessary evil.

Recently an embedded pool reporter witnessed a Marine in Fallujah, Iraq shoot an apparently unarmed and wounded terrorist without cause.

Why would someone commit such an apparent atrocity without reason, other than finding pleasure in killing the enemy? I will give one possible explanation.

There were recent reports of insurgents’ booby-trapping corpses of the fallen. It is possible that the Marine, most likely was aware of this new tactic, was acting in self defense against the possibility of the wounded terrorist detonating some type of explosive device. This would go a long way to explain the Marine shouting “He’s faking he’s dead!” before shooting him.

I believe that what the media, whether intentionally or not, has portrayed is a callous soldier murdering an unarmed enemy purely for the joy of the kill. They reported that the previous day the same Marine was shot in the face by the very terrorists he encountered a day later.

Why is this story even being told?

The U.S. military has always allowed journalists to go to the front lines of battle to cover the bravery and valor of our fighting men. Yet, recently the media has become increasingly biased in their reporting of the battlefield, foregoing the stories of bravery for stories of barbary.

Where are the stories of the heroic acts that these men are performing on a daily basis? Where are the heart-warming stories of the good that these men are doing? Those stories don’t get reporters noticed, they don’t get ratings. The media plays to an American society that has become so overly sensitive to being politically and morally correct that they are beginning to hinder the operations and safety of the very troops they are reporting on.

Maybe that Marine did just shoot him for the hell of it, but by creating such a ruckus over it, he has endangered the lives of others serving our country. What happens when the next Marine or Soldier comes across a booby-trapped body of a terrorist and hesitates for a split second because he doesn’t want to go through the bureaucracy of justifying his actions, and in that split second the booby trap goes off killing him and others around him. What will the reporter report then?

I believe that reports like this are causing the military to fight a politically correct war, a war that puts the lives of our young men and women at risk from being overly cautious.

The media, in my opinion, is doing a great disservice to our servicemen and women, by constantly reporting on the atrocities of war, and not on how they are attempting to better the lives of the people they are fighting for both home and abroad.

These men and women aren’t savages; they are sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, fighting to survive in a savage environment. The savages are the media exploiting the environment in search of nothing more than to make a name for themselves as the one who broke the big story.

——

Jay Bagley writes at Bagley Familiar.

In Death, no dignity

From their profile page of Yasser Arafat:

Born in Gaza in 1929 to a relatively well-to-do merchant family, he was given the name Muhammad, which has since been almost completely eclipsed by the nickname Yasir.

He was born in Cairo, not Gaza. Keep an eye out for Gaza and Jerusalem claims over the coming days.

Just in case you didn't realize that Al-Jazeerra was propaganda first, news second.

Media Watch: Sept. 30/04

Sigh. The mainstream media doesn't appear to be learning much.

• Maybe that should be C-BS? They're caught, again, producing a “news” segment involving bogus documents, little to no fact-chacking, and the deliberate misrepresentation of an activist's affiliations. CBS has now admitted as much re: the activist. This cartoon about sums up the issue.

• INDC has a couple of interviews with CBS personnel about the latest scandal.

• The Justice Department has charged that a veteran New York Times foreign correspondent warned an alleged terror-funding Islamic charity that the FBI was about to raid its office - potentially endangering the lives of federal agents. Ace of Spades also links to some background re: this reporter. Note that the Times denies the charges. We'll see.

• There seems to be one expert on the other side in the Rathergate expert scorecard now. Joseph M. Newcomer, one of the pioneers of electric typesetting, has what's generally considered to be the definitive analysis but David E. Hailey, Jr., Ph.D says no, this can be produced on a typewriter. AllahPundit has more re: the latter. I'd like to see Hailey and Newcomer go head to head, myself… but I suspect he'll hear from the blogosphere's experts first.

Read The Rest…

CBS' Non-Apology & Rathergate Update

Allahpundit has an update for you. As for Rather, he still continues to offer evasions about the documents' authenticity, confident in his ability to get away with it while many major media outlets still speak of documents that are merely 'controversial,' rather than the definitive forgeries they so clearly are.

Memo to bloggers and readers: keep the pressure on. I think a strong campaign to your local media is also called for, to get the word out. You're bloggers, which makes you interesting to your local press right now. Write them and volunteer to put the background materials together - the links in this very post will give you all you need. See also this outstanding example by Winds community member AMac, as he guest-blogs a magisterial summation of the evidence and the Baltimore Sun's coverage.

Meanwhile, guess where this quote comes from:

“Several journalism analysts said CBS News producer Mary Mapes' phone call to Kerry senior advisor Joe Lockhart amounts to at least a potential conflict of interest - giving the appearance that the network had assisted a candidate in the presidential race.”

Read The Rest…

PajamaBloggers.com

The disparaging reference to bloggers as people in pajamas has spurred me into actionover at Winds of Change.NET. I've just finished registering the domain Pajamabloggers.com - and will cheerfully work with the person who has the best proposal for how they want to use it.

FYI, I have also reserved cbsmemogate.com, and pajamasrevenge.com. I'm thinking that we need a site to aggregate the information coming in pro and con, which is currently quite fragmented. I have some ideas about that, but I'm interested in hearing others' thoughts and proposals as well (use Winds' comments or email “joe” here @windsofchange.net).

Issues. Please. The 60s are dead - and so are the 80s

Abraham Lincoln, as quoted in Kesher Talk's 2003 9/11 Roundup:

“The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We cannot escape history. The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation.”

We are beginning to think anew, and act anew, but it is not enough. I have commented before here on Winds of Change.NET re: the uselessness and foolishness of the current Vietnam debate in America's campaign, and find Ara Rubyan's similarly frustrated voice on the other side of the spectrum. Michael Totten, in the center, is of the same mind.

CBS' Ra^thergate shows that step 1 of the rethink needs to happen in America's media, which covered itself in shame after shame last week. Maybe if they had more people in pyjamas instead of the “professional” twits they currently employ, we'd be hearing more about real issues as Iran prepares to go nuclear and a 3 Conjectures future ticks nearer and nearer. Among other minor problems that obviously weigh less heavily than rehashes of a 30 year old war.

But the winds and waves of change will not stop with the media. For the Class 5 storm that began on Sept. 11 will wash away the certitudes of both parties before it has run its full course.

The Democratic Party's certitudes stem from the 1960s. Like an interstellar hitch-hiker facing the ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal, they have thrown a towel over their heads; if they can't see the threat, perhaps it will believe that it can't see them, either. They sit now in spiteful denial, shouting the same tired slogans, oblivious to their growing irrelevance. As Totten so memorably put it:

“Lefty Boomers seriously need to stop and ask themselves if they want to be today's Bob Dole.”

Ouch. Owwwwch! Now, here's the second half of the joke. The 1980s are dead too - and the news hasn't even reached the GOP's consciousness yet. But it will:

“If the Sixties are dead, then surely the Eighties are not far behind in the funerary procession. The Reagan years ensconced in the American psyche the notion that we can be strong on defense while frolicking on the beach at home. In Reagan’s time, this was a reasonable expectation with the Cold War as a backdrop. As a society, we were partially mobilized to fight the Soviets; our military was largely transparent. It was the era of parity with our enemy, brought about by mutual nuclear blackmail—-Pax Nuclea. And so the 1980s supposition that America can be militarized without being mobilized has added to our false sense of security in dealing with today’s dark threats.”

I'll leave the final summation to “Marcus Tacitus” of Between Hope and Fear, an exceptionally promising new blogger:

“This war, to date, is Sitzkrieg. The real battle has yet to be joined. Both parties of our political system equally tow the line that we can go on living exactly as we are accustomed to. And yet the briefest study of past wars always reveals huge sociopolitical and cultural transformations that equally overtake opposing sides regardless of who the victor and vanquished are. We have yet to admit that we are on the threshold to an unknown destiny. We live as though it were the 20th Century, because we still can, not because it is.”

CBS Documentary

“OutFoxed” has gotten a lot of coverage. Is it time for a CBS documentary? Here's a possible poster:

Finally, the right term

KUDOS TO THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR for using the right term when defining ETA, in an unusually balanced article today, considering the precedents in the foreign media:

Compared with the ruinous attacks that struck Spain in March, the bombings over the past 14 days in the northern provinces might be expected to attract little notice: Seven weak explosives, wrapped in plastic bags, and weighing less than 300 grams, caused only slight injuries and minor property damage.

But in Spain, a country that has suffered domestic terrorism for the past 30 years, the explosions were an unnerving reminder that ETA, the Basque terrorist group, was still a threat.

(emphasis mine)

I have complained in the past that the foreign media still uses the stupidly incorrect “separatist group” as the label for a group guilty of more than 800 murders. And there hasn't been a Franco to resist against for almost 30 years now.

(Crossposted at Barcepundit)

Perfectly timed...!

While Democratic delegates were conventioning in Boston, video store owners across the country were receiving promotional materials from Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment regarding a documentary titled The Hunting of the President, featuring footage of the Clintons, Susan McDougal, Jerry Falwell, James Carville, Robert Bennett, and others. (More information about this film is posted at IMDB.)

Directed by Harry Thomason, a friend of the Clintons and known for his work on television's Designing Women, and based on a best-selling book, this 90-minute unrated documentary examines “a coordinated effort to discredit [Clinton's] presidency,” and is targeted at women aged 35-54, adults aged 55+, and registered Democrats.

One of the key marketing points touted in the promotional material is that the release — slated for September 28 — is “perfectly timed to coincide with the November presidential elections.” A separate bullet point notes that the DVD ought to appeal to the nation's 85.4 million registered Democrats.

Whenever people wax lyrical about campaign finance reform, they always talk about curtailing the undue influence of “big money” vis a vis “the individual voter.” Practically speaking, the actual laws do little to thwart the efforts of sharp thinkers (on both sides of the aisle) to get around such laws, while managing to do a fairly good job of keeping any actual local grass roots efforts in check.

Not that I expect this documentary (a word that means little in a post-Bowling-for-Columbine world) will do any sort of huge business, but coming on the heels of Michael Riefenstahl-Moore's Farenheit 9/11 fantasy, it does seem a bit… peculiarly timed.

But I must be mistaken. Only Republicans are capable of timing, right?

(Cross posted here.)

Are Bloggers At Conventions Deluding Themselves?

Are bloggers at conventions deluding themselves into thinking they're “real” journalists because they'll be out in the fray, reporting from the field?

Are they in fact “the sizzle, not the steak” and nothing but glorified “Internet gossips,” journalistic wannabes who use dirty language, name call, don't care about accuracy and in some cases even take money to express certain opinions?

To hear Alex S. Jones explain the bloggers' unique role in the two upcoming conventions that is indeed the case. Jones is director of the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. And he seemingly doesn't think much of bloggers.

But before we get to his truly remarkable and strangely disdainful commentary in the Los Angeles Times Op-Ed section — revealingly titled “Bloggers Are the Sizzle, Not the Steak
Convention seats do not turn Internet gossips into journalists” — here's a view of what is really at the heart of his criticisms:

In every profession there is a certain amount of dues paying. As someone who worked in the news media as a freelance, a fulltime contributor overseas, and on the staffs of two chain-owned newspapers, I can attest that there are certain hoops the journalistic establishment expects those who will be blessed with a forum to comment must jump through.

I always tell people about when, a few years after I left journalism school, I was in Spain writing for the Chicago Daily News, the Christian Science Monitor and other publications. A major news magazine hired me to help them out on legwork and sidebars on the last few months of the Franco regime. By then I had written for some two years in India and five months in Spain. One of the magazine's big correspondents looked at me and said: “That's a good story you wrote. But you can't cover this if you haven't covered City Hall.”

I almost said “What do you mean I can't cover this? I AM COVERING IT NOW..” (Today I would say it). But he was resentful that I hadn't gone through “the system” yet. That's what Jones is basically suggesting about bloggers at conventions:

Bloggers will be covering the conventions WITHOUT jumping through the hoops. Without the editors (for better or for worse). Without being under the corporate pecking order which may entail advancing through layers of political gamesmanship. Without having gone through the organizational advancement required to be given a prominent forum to comment on big issues. And with freedom — and an instant audience not provided for by a big corporation.

So there's lots of RESENTMENT on the part of some because bloggers (perceived as nobodies without journalistic status) are doing it, not through the normal channels…and they will HAVE AN AUDIENCE. Writes Jones:

The Democrats and the Republicans are inviting a limited number of bloggers — those witty, candid, irreverent, passionate, shrewd and outrageous Internet chroniclers — to their 2004 conventions. It's a gesture of respect for the growing influence of the blogosphere, and if ever there were events ideally suited to bloggers, the heavily scripted and tensionless conventions top the list.

But make no mistake, this moment of blogging legitimization — and temporary press credentials — doesn't turn bloggers into journalists.

Political conventions have become festivals of faux harmony and candidate image-building, which makes them marvelous targets for blogging's candor, intelligence and righteous wrath.

However, bloggers, with few exceptions, don't add reporting to the personal views they post online, and they see journalism as bound by norms and standards that they reject. That encourages these common attributes of the blogosphere: vulgarity, scorching insults, bitter denunciations, one-sided arguments, erroneous assertions and the array of qualities that might be expected from a blustering know-it-all in a bar.

He notes that the “mainstream media” has cut back on its coverage and that there could actually be a big audience for blog provided convention news, then adds:

Presumably many Americans, especially young ones, will look for something with more spice and feistiness, which means they may well be looking at blogs and no doubt adding their own kibitzing via the medium's famed interactivity. This can be fun, and it can also be important. It was political bloggers and their fans who insulted and harassed and eventually embarrassed the major media into paying attention to the comments suggesting racism that Mississippi's Sen. Trent Lott made at South Carolina Sen. Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party. Media coverage forced Lott's resignation as Republican leader in the Senate, but it was bloggers who badgered the media until they did their job.

Journalists increasingly read blogs to pick up tips. Blogs have become a network of capillaries that feed the nation's veins of information. For that reason, blogging's freewheeling, unfettered style makes it a juicy target for manipulation.

In these early days, blogging still has the charm of guileless transparency, which in the blogosphere means that everyone — no matter how cranky or hysterical — is presumed to be speaking his or her mind with sincerity. It is this air of conviction that makes bloggers such potent advocates.

However, if history is any indicator, such earnestness will attract those who would exploit it, and they include some canny, inventive people. There is already talk of bloggers who would consider publishing items for cash and commercial blogs that tout products.

Oh really??? Where has THAT been a widespread practice? How many bloggers are taking money from parties or candidates for tailor-made posts? Is there an isolated case? Is this a practice that is widespread or even moderately-spread? Baloney.

That statement suggests Jones basically does not like to see bloggers getting the status of journalists who had to jump through the hoops of journalism schools, go through the “dues paying” at the tiny newspapers and magazines, and work (or brown nose) their way up the corporate ladder to get a shot at covering the conventions — and expressing opinions, whether they be of the right or the left.

Indeed, he increases his criticism of bloggers as his piece progresses:

Blogging is especially amenable to introducing negative information into the news stream and for circulating rumors as fact. Blogging's fact-checking apparatus is just the built-in truth squad of those who read the blog and howl loudly if they wish to dispute some assertion. It is, in a sense, a place where everyone has his own truth.
With the status conferred by convention credentials, blogging has arrived as an engaging, important new player in the information carnival. But should blogging displace traditional reporting and journalism, as some in the blogosphere predict it will, then the steak will have been swapped for the sizzle. It's better to have both.

That's a cop-out ending that is supposed to ease the bite of previous assertions. But it certainly appears as if Jones is annoyed that bloggers are being given the status of “mainstream” journalists at the convention — and that he wants to make sure that a distinction is clearly maintained.

In one sense he's right: the rules of journalistic confirmation, printing of rumors, etc. don't apply to and are basically not followed by some bloggers. But the diversity of perspective, the infusion of non-group-think-media reporting (there's LESS DANGER of Pack Blogging at the convention than Pack Journalism), and writers who have not been whipped into shape by corporate organizations (of the left and right) will be a welcome development.

The same as degree-holding, corporate journalists? No. Deserving of the same attentive reading? Most assuredly YES.

FOOTNOTE: I'm not writing this because I'm covering the conventions. I won't (I'll be doing family shows in Wyoming during the Democratic convention and probably be in Connecticut during the Republican one).

Bias in Boston Globe

Media Research Center has a great bias alert today regarding the coverage of the Sandy Berger investigation, particularly regarding the shift of coverage from what Berger did and what the investigation reveals to the timing of the leak.

This article in this morning's Boston Globe caught my eye:

The article is subtitled “Kerry tries to deflect Republican attacks” where it might just as easily subtitled “Republicans try to deflect Kerry attacks” or “Republicans and Democrats trade attacks.”

The author consistantly spins the language of the article to imply that Kerry and his advisors are innocents being baraged by Republican attacks, while a careful reader might pick up on the fact that many of the attacks by Republicans are responses to attacks on the President by Kerry or Kerry advisors and surrogates.

The article begins by repeating a Kerry claim that the White House leaked the Berger investigation. The author doesn't mention until the tenth paragraph that Kerry has offered no proof at all for his allegation, apart from the fact that several high-level Repubicans had lunch together beforehand. I've heard several high-level Democrats will meet next week in Boston. Will the author consider that meeting “proof” that every attack by every person who attends the DNC is part of a coordinated effort conceived by Kerry, for which Kerry is responsible?

It continues: “President Bush, meanwhile, used the White House bully pulpit yesterday to elevate the Berger controversy to 'a very serious matter,' prompting Democratic outcry that the president was hyping an ongoing criminal inquiry into Berger's actions to deflect attention from an independent commission's report on the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which is expected to be released today.”

Without having the context, you might think the President went out of his way to make a statement about the investigation, and that this statement was part of some action on the part of Bush playing up this scandal. In fact, Bush did not bring this topic up — it was the first question asked by a reporter at an unrelated, routine press availablity with a foreign leader:

“Q Thank you, Mr. President. President Clinton suggested that perhaps politics was behind the disclosure of the Sandy Berger investigation. Do you have anything to say about that? And, also, when did you learn about this probe?

PRESIDENT BUSH: I'm not going to comment on this matter. This is a serious matter, and it will be fully investigated by the Justice Department.

Q When did you learn, sir, if I may?

PRESIDENT BUSH: I'm not going to comment on it. It's a very serious matter. It will be fully investigated by the Justice Department.”

The author might easily have rewritten the paragraph to reflect that Democrats has already begun making allegations of a political timing to the leak, and Bush, when asked about the Democrat attacks, said “This is a serious matter, and it will be fully investigated…” rather than implying that attacks began with Republicans and Democrats were merely answering these attacks. The author never mentions that Bush didn't initiate the topic. It hardly seems like use of the “bully pulpit” to promote a story.

The article goes on to recap and quote Kerry campaign advisors attacking Republicans for allegedly attacking Kerry campaign advisors. For example, there is a laughable paragraph from Joe Wilson:

“'The Republicans are trying to tar me as a surrogate to John Kerry, just like they're trying to tar Sandy Berger, because they can't beat Kerry on the issues,' said former ambassador Joseph Wilson, who is involved in a dispute with the Senate Intelligence Committee about his investigation of Iraq's prewar nuclear weapons program. 'Right now, I'm a member of Kerry's foreign policy advisory group, but I'm spending most of my time fighting against the Bush camp.'”

No mention is made of the unanimous, bi-partisan findings of the Senate Intelligence Committee, or the Bulter Report, both of which would put Wilson's allegations in their proper light. If Wilson was “tarred”, it was a bi-partisan, even international, effort.

The author later states: “Another chief target is a close Kerry friend and campaign surrogate, former senator Max Cleland, who drew Republican attacks Monday. Cleland said President Bush had 'flat out lied' about why he the United States went to war in Iraq and argued that Bush chose to topple Hussein 'because he concluded his daddy was a failed president' for not ousting Hussein in the first Gulf War.”

The author doesn't even bother to mention what attacks the White House or Republicans allegedly made on Cleland, even though he details Cleland's allegations. Do these attacks even exist? How can the reader weigh those attacks against Cleland's attacks without knowing what they are? Despite the wording of the intro sentence, it's fairly clear that whatever “attacks” on Cleland are being made are in response to Cleland calling Bush a liar, something one might reasonable be expected to respond to. The paragraph would more properly state that Republicans are responding to Cleland's attacks, and if it were trying to be fair, restate or quote Cleland's attacks and the Republican counterattack.

The author repeats his Republicans-are-the-agressors theme in the next paragraph:

“The Bush campaign shifted into full attack mode against Whoopi Goldberg, Chevy Chase, and other performers after a Kerry fund-raiser this month at which Bush was attacked as a 'thug' and Goldberg made a sexual pun about the president. Republicans have been pressing cable talk-show hosts, newspaper columnists, and other members of the media to hold Kerry accountable for the words and actions of surrogates.”

Really? It's deeply shocking that the White House might respond when the President is called a killer or a liar? The author might have stated that Kerry supporters made a number of crude, vicious, and inflammatory statements, and that the Republicans pressed the media to hold Kerry responsible for statements made by his supporters at a fundraiser in his honor. Readers could judge for themselves whether Kerry ought to be held accountable for the language used if he choses not to condemn them. Alas, it would not have perpetuated the author's attempt to prove that an Kerry is under an unprovoked assault, but it would have had the virtue of being the truth.

News Styling of the Fourth Estate - now with 75% fewer facts!

Events of the last few days are a prime example of not letting the facts get in the way of a good story. And they also serve up some great examples of pushing a thinly desguised agenda behind the fig leaf of 'news coverage'.

Yeah, a lot of folks recognize this as the bleached bones of a horse that died quite some time ago - but it's good to check in every now and again to do a progress check. And the report would have to be that a few news organizations out there are even paying scant attention to the pretext of objectivity in their 'hard news' pieces by labelling them as 'news analysis'.

Coverage of the President's remarks at Oak Ridge, and Senator Kerry's remarks on the same day, are a perfect case in point.

Out of four major news outlets, CNN, MSNBC, The NY Times, and The Washington Post, none of them do little with the news except to piecemeal it for maximum juxtaposition value. Of the four, only one gives a link to the full text of the President's remarks (pause)

The full text of the President's remarks at Oak Ridge

(play)One gives the opportunity for you to pay them so you can watch the video of the speech (CNN), the other two just skip it entirely. None of them extract a listing of the instances the President uses to support his statements.

All four go out of their way to present the remarks as defensive of 'damage' - done either to the White House, or the CIA. All four float disembodied claims from both Bush and Kerry, virtually side by side, lending equal credence to both - despite the citation of the President to numerous specifics as a prelude to his conclusions.

A couple of the organizations throw in additional material from experts that question the free standing quotations picked from the President's speech. There is no such examination provided of Senator Kerry's remarks.

A more detailed look at this 'coverage' can be found here, and a closer examination of Senator Kerry's statements on the issue of nuclear security may be found here. Yes, both articles draw conclusions - but they also provide you with some material to indicate where those conclusions come from.

Michael Moore: you're no Ray Bradbury

Plus: the many lies of Fahrenheit 911.

Just a few of the Fahrenheit 911 big lies - big lies #1, #2, and #3 - are provided here.

And I even saw poor old Ray Bradbury on TV the other night complaining that low-life Michael Moore didn't even get Bradbury's permission before he ripped-off the title of Bradbury's classic book, Fahrenheit 451.

Indeed, Moore's movie cruelly mocks Bradbury's classic work. Bradbury's novel warned of a future world where censorship (book burning) is common-place. Moore uses the prestige of this classic title to spread lies - to mock freedom of speech itself - for his stark, narrow partisan propoganda. Disgusting.

I hope Ray Bradbury sues the obese jerk.

Even Richard Cohen - no mouthpiece for the right - says Moore's movie is rubbish:

- - - - - - -

Moore's depiction of why Bush went to war is so silly and so incomprehensible that it is easily dismissed. As far as I can tell, it is a farrago of conspiracy theories. But nothing is said about multiple U.N. resolutions violated by Iraq or the depredations of Saddam Hussein. In fact, prewar Iraq is depicted as some sort of Arab folk festival — lots of happy, smiling, indigenous people. Was there no footage of a Kurdish village that had been gassed? This is obscenity by omission.

- - - - - - -

Skip the movie. Read the book. Or this one (I like their new term for Moore's genre: “crockumentary”).

This is a duplicate of the original post on the nikita demosthenes website.

Don't Gift Christopher Hitchens Any Michael Moore DVDs

Vanity Fair columnist Christopher Hitchens has reviewed Michael Moore's new anti-Bush film Farenheight 911 in Slate and here's part of what he says:

To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of “dissenting” bravery.

Hey! It sounds like he's writing about my blog!

He then launches into a painstaking examination of the film, it's assumptions and contradictions.

Whether you're a Moore fan or foe or just someone who feels they must see the movie before they can genuinely defend or denounce it, you need to read this whole piece. From the standpoint of writing, it's brilliant (and whether you like Moore or not, it's FUN to read). Here's his final point:

If Michael Moore had had his way, Slobodan Milosevic would still be the big man in a starved and tyrannical Serbia. Bosnia and Kosovo would have been cleansed and annexed. If Michael Moore had been listened to, Afghanistan would still be under Taliban rule, and Kuwait would have remained part of Iraq. And Iraq itself would still be the personal property of a psychopathic crime family, bargaining covertly with the slave state of North Korea for WMD. You might hope that a retrospective awareness of this kind would induce a little modesty. To the contrary, it is employed to pump air into one of the great sagging blimps of our sorry, mediocre, celeb-rotten culture. Rock the vote, indeed.

Those last two lines: HEY! He IS talking about my blog!

UPDATE: Michael Moore is being Michael Moored via a new book, as Greg Piper notes here.

Is Media Coverage Too Biased or Too Narrow

So what's the real story about the coverage of what's going on Iraq? We see the scary stories, the burned out cars, the bodies, etc. but is it telling the whole story? And if you raise that question does it mean you're media-bashing and trying to purge negative news from newspapers and TV screens?

These issues are being raised thoughtfully on several fronts today. Most notably, by Greg Piper and by Fringe, both of whom use an article by Jay Rosen as a takeoff point. At issue is too biased versus what Rosen calls too “narrow” reporting.

And there is an issue to be addressed here: as someone who worked for the news media and in the news media for many years, many folks would be amazed how on major stories where there is indeed thoughtful planning regarding news mix, story selection, and staffing there may be a glitch: the story may become too compartmentalized, with too many parochial departments involved in too many aspects with poor coordination despite bigwig marching orders.

There is also the unmentionable issue of office politics — where one editor may want to get a piece of a story with one of “their” reporters and good-faith cooperation with another department or reporter suffers (careers are made by page one stories).

It's also a fact of life that a positive story usually gets placed inside the paper (or at the end of a broadcast), or is done as a feature or, if it can really hold up, saved as canned product for a “slower” day. The stated reason for this is the size of the news hole (or amount of broadcast time sans commercials).

In other words, in many cases inept, incomplete, or seemingly biased coverage isn't a matter of planning it that way. Like something we won't spell out here, it happens.

The New York Times Defines Torture

Excerpt from paragraph 14 of a June 8th New York Times article (registration required) describing Pentagon memos [from 2002] prepared as part of a review of interrogation techniques approved for use on a Saudi detainee, Mohamed al-Kahtani, who was believed to be the planned 20th hijacker in the Sept. 11 terror plot:

Mr. Rumsfeld suspended the harsher techniques, including serving the detainee cold, prepackaged food instead of hot rations and shaving off his facial hair, on Jan. 12, pending the outcome of the working group's review.

I just shaved and made myself some cold, prepackaged food for dinner. Guess I'm into self-torture.

Military Blindness in the Media - And Beyond

Writing in Reason Online, Chris Bray pens an excellent article full of telling bon mots. From the journalist who is awed by the fact that Army Rangers carry machine guns and grenade launchers, to the Wall St. Journal colleague who asked if the Marines fought in WW2, Bray's article is worthy for its anecdotes alone. But he also has a serious point, and it's one worth paying close attention to:

bq.. “Schneider’s piece is symptomatic of news media that often don’t have the foggiest idea how the military works, and don't really appear to care…. “To many young reporters these days,” said longtime journalist James Perry in a 1997 lecture at Washington College, “wars and soldiers and serving your country are vague concepts….

Reporters who cover the military without understanding it don’t just muff a few basic facts about what kind of soldier carries what kind of gun, or which service does what. They also fail to apply the right skepticism in the right places, or even the right credulity in the right places, and so end up swinging in a wild arc between breathless adulation and naive condemnation. They surrender many of the necessary tools for questioning the authority of the armed forces, and render nearly useless the check and the balance of the Fourth Estate on a major power of government. They create confidence where there should be wariness, and fear where there should be strength.

They get it wrong, and it counts.”

They do, often - and it does. Dale Franks of QandO has the links. It seems like a simple problem that could be cured by some basic diligence, research; and professional standards that demand real subject expertise to the same level as, say, sports journalism. But that doesn't seem to be happening, which leads one to wonder why not.

So it's doubly interesting to note that this problem may extend beyond the media. Former Clinton NSC staffer Heather Hurlburt leveled an eerily similar criticism at the Democratic Party back in November of 2001:

Read The Rest….

CBS' Mike Wallace uses WWII Memorial dedication for Bush-bashing

Big surprise: CBS “60 Minutes” star Mike Wallace and USA Today founder Al Neuharth used the WWII Memorial dedication as an opportunity to engage in Bush-bashing.

The U.S. and its Coalition partners have liberated over 20 million people in Iraq, but Mike Wallace says it's not a “noble enterprise.” Per NewsMax:

- - - - - - -

Square One Media Network's Kathryn Serkes was on hand and she tells NewsMax that at least 50 attendees got up and stormed out because of Wallace and Neuharth's partisan antics.

- - - - - - -

The mainstream media isn't liberal at all. Yeah right.

The Democrats have an actual foreign policy other then all-Bush-bashing, all-the-time. Yeah right.

Via NewsMax.

This is a duplicate of the original post on the nikita demosthenes website.

An Antidote for the Nattering Nabobs of Negativism in the American Mainstream Media

Finally: an antidote for the nattering nabobs of negativism in the American mainstream media: an interview with the no-nonsense Jon Schaffer of the band “Iced Earth.” As posted on the “Brave Words & Bloody Knuckles” website:

- - - - - - -

BW&BK: “This next question is controversial so I'm letting you know before we proceed. Some political analysts have articulated the view that what happened on September 11 was justified due to America's presence in the Middle East, specifically Saudi Arabia. Some political analysts view it as retaliation for what the US has done in the Middle East in the past. As a Canadian, I'm interested in hearing what you have to say about this view that's been put forth by analysts.”

JS: “No, it wasn't justified. Not at all. And anybody who says so needs to have their fuckin' head examined.”

BW&BK: “Do you think 9/11 will be viewed as the first event in the US empire's decline and fall?”

JS: “No. This is not an empire, first of all. If the United States was an empire, your country would be our 51st state.”

BW&BK: “I understand.”

JS: “Let's get real. We don't do that. It's not our thing. Colin Powell did an interview and the interviewer called the United States an empire and used this bullshit fuckin' socialist language and his response was, 'The only land we've ever asked for is enough for the kids who don't come home. In all the countries we've gone and liberated as far back as WWII, the only land we've asked for is for our soldiers that died.' There's an over-whelming amount of jealousy and resentment out there. When you're the leader, everyone comes to you when they need help. But then they shit on you every chance they get. You can never please everybody all the time. No matter what you do. You can try to do the best things, and no matter what someone is out to get you and tear you down. It's in that way in any scale of leadership. I don't care if it's a personal thing or a country or a commander of a battalion. It's human nature, it's unfortunate. But it's the way it is.”

- - - - - - -

- - - - - - -

BW&BK: “I've got one more question here.”

JS: “Ok.”

BW&BK: “Do you think the Democrats or a leftist government would do some good in the US? Because, like I said, I'm from Canada and we've always had a left-of-centre government. And we don't seem to have a lot of the problems the US has — crime and poverty aren't as rampant here. Do you think a leftist government could do something positive for the States?”

JS: “No. There have been times throughout the history of the country where it's happened. But the whole idea of this country is not to have a government tit. We don't stand for that. There are people who would probably like that, and they should probably move to Canada. I don't want a Big Brother dictating my life. It's a lack of drive. The people who want that stuff are the people who never really got their hands dirty and busted their asses to achieve something. There's a big difference. It's the difference between us and a lot of places. If I live on the streets as a teenager to make my goals a reality or I pay my dues or if I'm a student who's gone to school for 12 years to attain some career and then I get out of school and work my way up through a certain business or whatever, I don't feel like I should be taxed to death to pay for all these government programs that the leftists want. I'm an independent person, the smaller the government the better. Government should not be ruling people's lives. It's bullshit and that's not what we're about. I know the ultra-liberal thing is let's throw a bunch of money at something and that'll fix it. Well, I think the facts prove that's horseshit. The Republicans — the party of Lincoln — but in the last 30 or 40 years the black voters have been voting big-time…”

BW&BK: “Democrat.”

JS: “Democrat, yeah! But where have the Democrats gotten the blacks? Look at it for what it is. You guys have a whole different way of looking at things up there. That's fine, but it's not our thing.”

BW&BK: “I understand.”

JS: “The majority of the people here would rather — and I'm talking about the doers, not the people who want the hand-outs, or are the victims, or blame all their troubles on others — don't want government in their lives dictating what they should do. People like me who bust their asses to achieve something and a specific goal, we don't want to be taxed to death. We want to be in control of our lives. And that's the American way. If it's too hard for you, well then leave it. What else can you say? I've never said the United States is an easy place to live. But the reality is that you can come from absolutely nothing and accomplish anything. And that's worth a lot.”

BW&BK: “I agree. So, that's pretty much it for the interview. I want to thank you for doing this interview because I know how these controversial interviews can sometimes go. But you were really insightful, and that was really cool.”

JS: “The thing is, you're going to spin this however you want and I have no control over that. That's what most of the guys in the press do. I'll give an interview, and then they'll edit out certain things. It's like CNN, the Communist News Network. You deliver a story a certain way and try to get people to think a certain way. So, it's basically in your hands. You or your editor can make it look however you guys want it to. At the end of the day, I don't really give a fuck what people think. And you're more than welcome to print this. I am who I am. I don't have to answer to anybody. I'm not ashamed of anything I've done to get where I am. I'm an honest guy and I'm a straight shooter. And you can print all that. I won't be judged by another human being, especially some snot-nosed kid who's never had to work a day in his life for anything. You know how it is, man. A lot of people think they are a wealth of knowledge. I have real-world education. I left high school when I was 16, but I graduated from the school of hard knocks.”

BW&BK: “And you know what? That's valuable. There's a lot of shit you learn on the streets you can't learn in a classroom.”

JS: “Totally, man! I know several people who were in college for six years and are now making 30 grand a year. It's all about attitude, man. And that's what I love about my country. That I was able to split at 16 and just work towards a specific goal. But, I didn't make excuses either. If I failed, I took responsibility for it, I learned from it and I picked myself up and moved on. It's the people who always say, 'Man, my girlfriend didn't want me to go to practice.' Whatever, I've heard a million excuses. They'll blame it on some other deal. Those are the ones who never make it. It doesn't matter whether it's being in a band or any other goal. Unless you take responsibility for your own actions and you're hard on yourself and you push yourself and you take responsibility for your own actions and you're honest with yourself.”

BW&BK: “I'm glad you ended it on that note. I'm as proud to be Canadian as you are to be American. Your words speak for themselves, and I don't know how I could spin this story.”

JS: “Well, that's cool. But the way you asked your questions, you were asking biased questions. Calling our president the Bush regime? That's a tainted thing, dude. That's not like saying, 'How do you feel about President Bush?' Saying 'Bush Regime' is a bullshit way of saying it. That's spin, alright? But you can say it however you want. It's in your hands. You're the one who has to live with it, not me. Because I'm cool with who I am. I'm doing an interview for the DVD tomorrow.”

BW&BK: “Oh yeah?”

JS: “Yeah, so the fans can actually hear direct and see me and hear me talking and saying it. And they'll know who I am. They won't have to go through the dickheads at Blabbermouth who take things out of context and spread lies and innuendo.”

BW&BK: “(chuckles) I understand, man.”

JS: “The fans will see the real deal with the DVD.”

BW&BK: “Well, thanks a lot for the interview, I really appreciate it like I said.”

JS: “You got it, man.”

BW&BK: “Alright, see you on tour, dude!”

JS: “See ya! Bye.”

- - - - - - -

Via Andrew Sullivan (under “HARD ROCK VS. CHOMSKY”).

Here's the website for Iced Earth. I think I'll go buy one of their CD's. Good job, mate!

And, while I'm one the topic, there's something that's really been bothering me lately. I'm sick and tired of everyone (including way too many conservatives) saying President Bush and the Administration did a good job of waging the war, but have done a bad job of “managing the peace.” I think this is utter, laughable, inane bullshit.

We took a country that has never known democracy or individual liberties - and which was in a state of utter disrepair with regard to its public services and infrastructure. We've taken this basket-case country and we're on the verge of an interim Iraqi government leading to free elections.

We've put down brutal insurgency after brutal insurgency and we've brought basic services to the people (schools, hospitals, power, water, food, telephones, internet access, etc.).

In short, I THINK WE'VE DONE AN AWESOME JOB OF MANAGING THE PEACE! And in my humble opinion, anyone who doesn't think so is a gutless-wonder arm-chair quarterback. If we listened to these gutless wonders we'd never do anything - we'd just wring our hands over the “complexity of the situation” and leave blood-stained brutes like Saddam Hussein in power forever.

The anti-war whiners around the world have no credibility. If they'd gotten their way, Saddam Hussein would still be in power - filling mass graves - and Uday Hussein would still be picking women off the streets of Baghdad to rape and kill them. Nice morality you have there, anti-war lefties.

Don't listen to them, troops. Most of us know the truth: you've done an outstanding job at winning the war and you've done an outstanding job of managing the peace!

God bless you and keep up the good work!

And President Bush: you've done a great job too. I may be one of the few to come right out and say it (in even the conservative blogosphere). Great job. Here's hoping for four more years.

This is a duplicate of the original post on the nikita demosthenes website.

Media Bias On Iraq Criticism and Praise

Every time John McCain or Chuck Hagel make some criticism of the President, on the war or any other topic, the mainstream media echo chamber replay the tape 'til it's worn. But Joe Lieberman's supportive remarks regarding the war seem to dissipate into the ether. For example, Lieberman made some great comments last night on “Paula Zahn Now,” but I don't see a trace of them in the papers or on tv, even though he's a sitting Senator and former presidential/vp candidate:

ZAHN: Senator lieberman, will the plan in place work? We just had Secretary Albright on who more or less suggested that it is unrealistic.

LIEBERMAN: There are obviously no guarantees here. But I do think tonight the President did what he has to do in this speech and in the ones that will follow in the next weeks, which is to shore up American support, to remind the American people why we must win this battle against the terrorists and the Saddam loyalists. And to remind them that he has done some of the things that his critics asked him to do, including me. He has now gone to the United Nations. He has now increased the number of American troops there and is prepare to send more to keep the security so that democracy can take hold. So, I hope that all of us in both parties who have said that we have to stay in Iraq and finish the job in pursuit of our own values and of our own security will pull together and make it happen, and not be part of a chorus of doubters that will undermine the support of the American people more. We’ve to stay united here as best we can to support our troops, but to support our cause. In my opinion, this is the test of our generation. And if we don't win it in Iraq, we're going to face it much closer to home in the years ahead.

. . . ZAHN: And yet Senator Lieberman, there are obviously three disparate factions that this government has to worry about uniting: the Shias, Kurds, and Sunnis. Do you have concerns about that? Short-term and long-term?

LIEBERMAN: It is a democracy is not easy. It is sometimes messy, you know? But the folks in Iraq, thanks to the courage and skill of the American military have options before them that they never would have dreamed they would have today and that's because Saddam, that brutal dictator is gone. And we have the United Nations in there now, through Ambassador Brahimi, trying to negotiate an agreement between the Shias, Sunnis and Kurds. I believe he can do it. But what is most important is that before long the Iraqi people are going to get to do it. They will get to vote. And I think if the American people don't lose — if we don't lose our will, we're going to look back with real pride at what our troops have done and what we can do together for the Iraqis, but also to secure our values and our security.

CNN Math

CNN demonstrates its true colors yet again… a shameful red.

MAARIV: CNN deliberately disseminating disinformation

CNN has deliberately played fast and loose with UN figures to create a false i