2008.05.30

Karma

What is it about Hollywood celebrities? How is it that even when they're on the right side of an issue, they can still manage to make complete and total asses of themselves?

Take Sharon Stone. (Please.)

French fashion house Christian Dior said Thursday it has dropped Sharon Stone from its Chinese ads and released a statement from the actress apologizing for saying China's earthquake may have been bad karma for its treatment of Tibet.

But she said sorry! Good grief. What kind of moral imbecile does a person have to be to imagine that the death of thousands of innocent people is some kind of divine punishment for a nation's corrupt dictatorship?

I'm betting the Communist mafiosi in Beijing weren't the ones living in sub-code housing and pulling their children's bodies from the rubble.

What kind of "spirituality" is it that leads a 50-year-old adult to make such an obscenely stupid comment? Somehow, in Sharon Stone's mind, "the Chinese" are all identical, or if not identical then at least morally interchangeable - a billion souls in a single karmic entity.

It is the most dangerous of human presumptions to try to second-guess the great design of the universe. To imagine that our tiny minds have been privileged to grasp some profound deeper reason behind the most incomprehensible tragedies. Most likely, Stone and her bubble-headed new age comrades believe in such platitudes as "everything happens for a reason".

Well, yes. Everything does happen for a reason. It's called cause and effect. Lightning strikes, fires burn, oceans drown, and when the earth moves, buildings fall and crush people. And the tools we're given to deal with these things - the only tools that are of any real use - are our reason and our intellect and our ability to work with one another and learn from one another. We learn, slowly, to stay away from open spaces in a thunderstorm, to run from the smell of smoke, to swim and build boats and treat the sea with respect, and to build stronger homes. But we never learn these things fast enough, or well enough, and still innocent people die.

I've written elsewhere about the moral challenges that a dangerous wilderness presents to us. Here I'll just say that Sharon Stone's comment about China reveals the dangerous traps we can get into when we try to imagine what the Creator has in mind for us.

Interestingly enough, the Dalai Lama also had some thoughts on the China earthquake:

The Dalai Lama offered his condolences and prayers Tuesday for the victims of the massive earthquake that hit central China, killing some 12,000 people.

"I would like to extend my deep sympathy and heartfelt condolences to those families who have been directly affected by the strong earthquake," the Tibetan spiritual leader said in a statement. "I offer my prayers for those who have lost their lives and those injured."


But what does he know about Tibet? Or about karma?

2008.05.22

Cindy McCain in Vogue

Tammy Bruce:

Yippee. Please let him not screw this up. And they better innoculate/prepare her for what the "progressive, feminist, tolerant" liberals are going to try to do to her. Cindy is one of McCain's great strengths.

2008.05.21

Philippe Karsenty Wins Appeal - French Court Dismisses Charges

Israel Matzav:

Israel Radio's Paris correspondent Gil Michaeli has just reported that the French Court of Appeals has overturned the libel judgment against Phillipe Karsenty and has determined that Karsenty did not libel France 2 correspondent Charles Enderlin when he reported that the 'death' of 12-year old Mohamed Al-Dura at Netzarim in the Gaza Strip in September 2000 may have been staged, and that it was unlikely that the death was caused by IDF soldiers.

Augean Stables:
More details to follow. But word from Paris is that the court dismissed charges against Philippe Karsenty today. Now we get to see how the French (and Western) MSM handle this. It’s a stunning victory for Karsenty and loss for Enderlin and France2 who initiated this case when they didn’t have to.

In order for an appeals court to reverse a decision, they must have strong evidence to the contrary.

The fact that they did indicates that their written decision will be very critical of France2. The implications of this decision are immense. We’ll be following up in the days, weeks and months to come.


The backstory: Neo's archive of Karsenty/Enderlin/al-Durah/France2 posts.

The Belmont Club invokes l'affaire Dreyfus.

2008.02.29

60 Minutes Hit Piece Falls Apart

Gateway Pundit has the details.

And not that it's really germane, but is it just me, or does Dana Jill Simpson look like ... ? Oh, never mind.

2008.02.17

"Just Americans doing our normal thing and trying to figure things out."

Roger Simon talks sense on American politics.

2008.01.29

As opposed to the legitimate ones.

Harry's Place has a few choice words for the BBC's exposé on "bogus psychics".

2008.01.07

Zero Dimensional

“No, I mean they would kill me.”
There are problems, and then there are problems.

Nicholas Kulish, writing in the New York Times' Berlin Journal, tells us about the lives of gay Muslims in Europe, as seen at a gay dance club in Berlin.

But most of the people filling the dance floor on Saturday at the club SO36 in the Kreuzberg neighborhood were gay, lesbian or bisexual, and of Turkish or Arab background. They were there for the monthly club night known as Gayhane, an all-too-rare opportunity to merge their immigrant cultures and their sexual identities.
Well, that's nice. But there are a few harsh realities to be dealt with. Here's how Kulish explains it:

European Muslims, so often portrayed one-dimensionally as rioters, honor killers or terrorists, live diverse lives, most of them trying to get by and to have a good time. That is more difficult if one is both Muslim and gay.

Our friend Nicholas Kulish wants you to know he won't have any of this nasty stereotyping; far be it from the New York Times to portray Muslims - one-dimensionally or otherwise - as honor killers or terrorists. So we learn that
To be a gay man or lesbian with an immigrant background invites trouble here in two very different ways.

“Depending on which part of Berlin I go to, in one I get punched in the mouth because I’m a foreigner and in the other because I’m a queen,” said Fatma Souad, the event’s organizer and master of ceremonies.


And these two things are exactly equal to one another, right? But there's something odd going on here:
But gay men and lesbians from Muslim families say they face extraordinary discrimination at home. A survey of roughly 1,000 young men and women in Berlin, released in September and widely cited in the German press, found much higher levels of homophobia among Turkish youth.

You don't say?
Hatin Sürücü was shot dead at a bus stop in Berlin, Germany, on February 7. The 23-year-old Turkish woman was mourned by the lesbian and gay community, but not by her family. Deutsche Welle reports:
To the people who came to this bleak part of Berlin's Tempelhof district for Tuesday's solemn vigil -- called not by the city's Muslim community but a gay and lesbian organization -- the image of the young woman in a headscarf, a baby in her arms, was familiar from newspapers and television. A few notes at the memorial read, "Hope you get a better deal in your next life," and "Live a life on your own terms."

"It's a scandal," said Ali K, 33. "All Muslims in Berlin should take to the streets to protest." Yasemin, 22, said, "It's horrific. All Hatin was doing was leading her life the way she wanted."

But it was a choice she paid for with her life. On Feb. 7, 23-year-old Hatin Sürücü was gunned down at the aforementioned bus stop. She died on the spot. Shortly afterwards, three of her brothers -- who reportedly had long been threatening her -- were arrested. Investigators suspect it was a so-called "honor killing," given the fact that Sürücü's ultra-conservative Turkish-Kurdish family strongly disapproved of her modern and "un-Islamic" life.

Sürücü grew up in Berlin and was married off at 16 to a cousin in Istanbul. ...


Here's more from the DW article on Hatin Sürücü:
Days after Hatin Sürücü was killed, some male students of Turkish origin at a high school near the scene of the crime reportedly downplayed the act. During a class discussion on the murder, one said, "She (Hatin Sürücü) only had herself to blame," while another remarked "She deserved what she got --the whore lived like a German." The school's director promptly dashed off a letter to parents and students, castigating the students and warning that the school didn’t tolerate incitement against freedom.

Oh, but wait. Silly me. I've gotten distracted. We were talking about the wonderful gay night life in Berlin. Let's get back to Nicholas Kulish. Now where were we? Ah, yes, "... much higher levels of homophobia among Turkish youth."
“These differences are there,” said Bernd Simon, who led the study and is a professor of social psychology at Christian-Albrechts-University in Kiel. “We can’t deny them. The question is how do we cope with them.”

“The answer is not to replace homophobia with Islamophobia,” he added, pointing out that homophobia is also higher among Russian immigrants and in other, less urban parts of Germany.


Well that certainly is enlightening. "The answer is not to replace homophobia with Islamophobia," the good professor instructs us. Homophobia, islamophobia ... six of one, half a dozen of the other. And we may not know what the answer is (Professor Simon hasn't even attempted to answer his own question) but at least we know what it is not. I feel better already.

But what are those gay Muslims themselves saying?

Kader Balcik, a 22-year-old Turk from Hamburg, said: “For us, for Muslims, it’s extremely difficult. When you’re gay, you’re immediately cut off from the family.”

He had recently moved to Berlin not long after being cut off from his mother because he is bisexual. “A mother who wishes death for her son, what kind of mother is that?” he asked, his eyes momentarily filling with tears.

Hasan, a 21-year-old Arab man, sitting at a table in the club’s quieter adjoining cafe, declined to give his last name, saying: “They would kill me. My brothers would kill me.” Asked if he meant this figuratively, he responded, “No, I mean they would kill me.”


And so, at the end of his 1100-word opus, Nicolas Kulish has his epiphany. Like a sort of reverse Balaam, he wanted to say only nice things about gay life for Muslims in Germany. But reality had other ideas.

***

Last week, two young lives were snuffed out in Texas.

Yaser Abdel Said, 50, was wanted on a warrant for capital murder after police say he shot the girls Tuesday and left them to die in his taxi, which was found parked in front a hotel in Las Colinas, a suburb north of Dallas. Police said Mr. Said should be considered armed and dangerous.

Friends of Amina Yaser Said, 18, and Sarah Yaser Said, 17, described the girls to the Dallas Morning News as "extremely smart — like geniuses," saying the slain sisters had been enrolled in advanced placement classes and were active in soccer and tennis at suburban Lewisville High School.

While police refused to discuss a possible motive for the crimes, family and friends told reporters that the girls' Westernized lifestyle caused conflict with their Muslim father, who immigrated from Egypt in the 1980s.


This comes on the heels of the murder of Aqsa Parvez in Canada last month.
A 16-year-old girl is dead and her father has been charged with murder after an attack in a Mississauga home.

Aqsa Parvez, a student at Applewood Heights Secondary School, had been on life support in hospital since yesterday morning.

Police went to the family's two-storey home on Longhorn Trail about 8 a.m. yesterday after receiving a 911 call in which a man allegedly claimed to have killed his daughter.

Paramedics found Aqsa with a faint pulse and rushed her to hospital. She was later transferred to a Toronto hospital and placed on life support.

Peel police said this morning that she died overnight.

Friends at the victim’s school said she feared her father and had argued over her desire to shun the hijab, a traditional shoulder-length head scarf worn by females in devout Muslim families.

Here's Phyllis Chesler:

Just yesterday, an Egyptian Arab Muslim father in Dallas, Texas allegedly shot his two beautiful teenage daughters to death because he disapproved of their American-style ways. Their names were Amina and Sarah Said and their father’s name was Abdul Said. The girls looked sassy and full of life; they looked like Dallas teenagers. They were 17 and 18 years old and their friends considered them “geniuses.” Abdul was a taxi driver. (In parts of Europe, taxi drivers are known to aid and abet honor murders).

Perhaps how Amina and Sarah dressed, and how they thought, shamed their father Abdul. He was no longer in control of his women—a mark of shame which provoked his need to kill them. Perhaps their flowering sexuality enraged him because it made him desire them—and from this he concluded that other men might desire them too and if he could not have them, no man could.
The blogs and the local Texas media (the Dallas Morning News) were all over this. Hot Air, Atlas Shrugs, Jihad Watch, were too. The only national coverage of this story was contained in the Washington Times. Why did the national and international media so far shy clear of this story? Perhaps they chose to dig deeper first or maybe they were waiting for an arrest to be made. But one also wonders: Were they afraid of being accused of “Islamophobia” if they reported the truth?


There's that word again. Where is all this islamophobia coming from, anyway? Via Muslims Against Sharia, here's an article in the Yemen Times arguing unironically that there must be violence against women:
This title may sound strange, but it’s actually not just a way to attract readers to the topic because I really do mean what it indicates. Violence is a broad term, especially when used regarding women. In this piece, I want to shed light on those instances where violence against women is a must. ...

Perhaps Abdul Said, fine upstanding chap that he is, was just doing his Islamic duty. We know he was a good Egyptian Muslim; perhaps of the same moral fiber as those Egypt-based internet users who populate my site statistics with searches like "egypt women fuck", "pics of egyption woman for fuck", "egyptian fucking pictures", "fucking girls from egypt", "fucking egyptian girls", and similarly inspiring sentiments. Or perhaps there's some profound cultural and moral value that's being upheld by the sexual harassment of women in Egypt. But I'm digressing again.

And I'm probably being unfair by picking on the Egyptians, so I'll turn now to Irshad Manji, a lesbian Muslim of South Asian background, on Aqsa Parvez:

Aqsa Parvez told friends and adults at her public high school that she feared what her father would do if she stuck by her decision to reject the hijab — the Islamic headscarf. She also said it’s better to live in a shelter than at home.

Nobody listened. Now she’s dead.

Moderate Muslims have warned that we shouldn’t leap to conclusions. Who knows what other dynamics infected her family, spout hijab-hooded mouthpieces on Canadian TV. Not once have I heard these upstanding Muslims say that whatever the “family dynamics,” killing is not a solution. Ever. How’s that for basic morality?


Irshad goes on to make an important point: even "progressive" non-Muslims fall into the trap of confusing the hijab (which Irshad contends is itself of pre-Muslim, tribal origin) with the basic Muslim injunction to "dress modestly".

And this brings us to the idea expressed in the title of Irshad's post - "Covering up the diversity of Muslim women." By refusing to see women in the Muslim world as individuals with hopes, needs, fears, dreams, and faces of their own, the self-styled "progressive" left buys into the notion of women as objects - expressions of an exotic oriental culture more primitive, and yet somehow ineffably wiser, than our own, decadent, materialistic, industrialist Western world.

***
Times Online reports: Woman artist gets death threats over gay Muslim photos.

THE Dutch were debating the limits of freedom of expression last week after an artist who photographed gay men wearing masks of the prophet Muhammad was forced into hiding and her work removed from a museum exhibit.

Speaking on the telephone from an unspecified location in the Netherlands last week, the artist, an Iranian exile who goes by the pseudonym of Sooreh Hera, said she had been threatened with “execution”. She accused the director of the municipal museum in The Hague of cowardice for caving in to Muslim extremists.

Her story is a reminder of the tensions that have put the Netherlands and other European countries on the front line, sending dozens of people threatened by extremists into hiding since 2004, when a Dutch film-maker was murdered on the street and his collaborator driven into exile. [That's Theo van Gogh and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, for those of you who may need a reminder. - aa]

This leaves Hera, 34, in no doubt that she is in real danger. “They said to me, ‘We’re going to burn you naked or put a bullet in your mouth’,” she said, referring to menacing e-mails.

“They say, ‘Now you are locked in your home and you cannot go out any more’.”

She said that by photographing gay Iranian exiles in masks of Muhammad, the founder of Islam, and Ali, his son-in-law, she had wanted to expose a “hypocritical” attitude towards homosexuality in countries such as Iran, where men can be hanged for homosexual conduct. ...


I can picture Sooreh Hera patiently explaining the death threats to the Dutch police: "No, I mean they would kill me."

Read the rest at the link. You know, when the words "woman", "artist", "gay", and "death threats" all occur in a single headline, you'd think this would be just the kind of thing the liberal left ought to be on top of. Well ...

Wouter Bos, the deputy prime minister, seemed to take a stand for freedom of speech, saying: “In a democracy, we do not recognise the right not to be insulted.” The left wing de Volkskrant newspaper, by contrast, praised the museum for its “great professionalism” in excising the images.

Gateway Pundit has a roundup; and here's a link to Sooreh Hera.

***

To worry, as the journalist quoted in the first section above did, about the "one-dimensional" portrayal of terrorists and honor murderers, is to forget the victims. Not merely to forget, but to deliberately blot out of memory. As if it was only the aggressor, and not the victim, who had any reality to begin with. Then one must dance, so to speak, around the reality of violence and fear that rules the lives of so many dissidents, women, and gay people in the Muslim world.

Ironically it's exactly these people - folks like the well-meaning journalist - who help to create the "one-dimensional" picture of Islam, while ignoring the lives of those who sought to reimagine, reinvent, reform, question, rebel against, or abandon Islam entirely.

I am not going to split hairs over whether these atrocities were committed "by Islam", "in the name of Islam", "by extremists who hijacked Islam", or whatever. The common thread is a hatred of joy, creativity, diversity, and life itself. It is a nihilistic desire to reduce the rich flower of the living world to a zero-dimensional state of uniformity and nothingness.

This time last year, Aqsa Parvez and Sarah and Amina Said were active, healthy, determined young women. Now all that's left of them is a collection of pixels on the screen of your computer, and the memories they left behind with those who knew them.

Remember their faces. Remember their names.


Aqsaparvez
Aqsa Parvez

Sarahaminasaid
Sarah and Amina Said

2007.12.22

Free Mark Steyn!

Free Mark Steyn!

2007.11.19

Immediate opening!

The New Republic is looking for an assistant editor to fill an immediate opening in our Washington, DC office. The assistant editor will be responsible for guiding the magazine's fact-checking department ...
Beer spew on keyboard.

Via Confederate Yankee.

AP's Bilal Hussein will face charges.

AP:

NEW YORK (AP) - The U.S. military plans to seek a criminal case in an Iraqi court against an award-winning Associated Press photographer but is refusing to disclose what evidence or accusations would be presented.
An AP attorney on Monday strongly protested the decision, calling the U.S. military plans a "sham of due process." The journalist, Bilal Hussein, has already been imprisoned without charges for more than 19 months.

A public affairs officer notified the AP on Sunday that the military intends to submit a written complaint against Hussein that would bring the case into the Iraqi justice system as early as Nov. 29. Under Iraqi codes, an investigative magistrate will decide whether there are grounds to try Hussein, 36, who was seized in the western Iraqi city of Ramadi on April 12, 2006.

Hot Air:

Bilal Hussein is the AP stringer photographer who was arrested in Iraq by US forces in April 2006 and held on suspicion that he had serious connections to terrorists. Trying him in the Iraqi justice system does make sense. Whether he’s guilty or not (and the evidence suggests that he’s as guilty as a Kennedy in a sorority house), his alleged crimes were against the Iraqi people and committed inside Iraq. But the Associated (with terrorists) Press isn’t happy.

Michelle Malkin has a refresher course in Bilal Hussein's career. Please take a moment to go check out those photos, and the accompanying text.

Sweetness and Light recaps Bilal Hussein's oeuvre, and reminds us that "The last two photos are of the heroic “insurgents” who kidnapped and then murdered the Italian national, Salvatore Santoro."

The Belmont Club comments:

The poor performance of government lawyers so far probably means that Bilal Hussein will have better defense lawyers than the prosecution. On the other hand, the plethora of captured insurgent documents and the number of former insurgents who have switched to the coalition side may mean that the government case, if Hussein is guilty, may be unstoppable.

The expression "to the victors go the spoils" is true in more than the military sense. The winners get to write history because theirs by definition is the winning narrative. Bilal Hussein will get his day in court, but the defeat of al-Qaeda in Iraq -- which the press is only now and very reluctantly beginning to admit -- means that many of the "freedom fighters" and "Minutemen" they devoted such space to have gone from Hero to Zero in the land between the rivers. This should be interesting to watch.

And I'll be watching it here. Stay tuned.

2007.11.04

Grim Milestones

The Australian: The Day(s) Nobody Was Killed in Iraq:

"The day nobody died from violence in Iraq" is a date that has been much anticipated in the White House - where US President George W. Bush is desperate to hail the success of his surge of 30,000 troops this year.

But no one can quite say when this event occurred.

"It was some time this week, wasn't it?" says a senior military source. "Or maybe last week."

Another diplomatic official confidently asserted that there were "at least two such days this month". When, exactly? "Not sure," he replied.

Such vagueness may be concealing a truly significant transformation on the ground in Iraq.

There have certainly been several days in the past month when no US or British soldiers were killed.

During a five-day stretch between October 19 and 23, there were no deaths among coalition forces. Although three US servicemen died from "non-hostile causes", this was the longest period without combat deaths for almost four years. And, between October 27 and 29, there were more days without coalition deaths.

Such statistics do not take account of deaths among the Iraqi security forces or civilians. But Iraqis, too, have had days when no one in their ranks has died. On October 13, for instance, neither the coalition nor the Iraqi military suffered any deaths. But one Iraqi policeman was killed, along with four reported civilian deaths in Baghdad.

Two days later, there were no deaths among the coalition but six among the Iraqi security forces.

October 19 was a death-free day for both coalition and Iraqi security forces, but 12 civilians were killed.

The civilian death toll was lower on October 23 - when four were killed - but they were joined in the mortuaries by two Iraqi policemen.

On October 30, the Iraq Interior Ministry reported that there were no civilian deaths in Baghdad but three US troops and four Iraqi policemen were killed.

It is beyond dispute, though, that the tide of violence in Iraq has been stemmed. ...

2007.10.25

"The reality of war is hellish enough"

Beauchamp treed.

2007.10.24

It Shouldn't Take a Hero

Phyllis Chesler:

Philippe Karsenty is tall, handsome, charming--and very determined; un homme, tres serieux (a very serious gentleman).

Karsenty, a 41 year-old former stockbroker, media analyst, and founder of Media-Ratings, came to America on a lecture and media tour shortly after his interim victory in a Paris courtroom in the matter of the Al Dura Hoax. The state owned TV channel, France 2, sued him for defamation when Karsenty insisted that their airing of a brief (55-59 second) portion of the (27 minutes of raw footage) constituted a Blood Libel. The staged event took place on September 30, 2000 at the Netzarim Junction and became the Face that launched far more than a thousand Islamist riots, anti-Israeli petitions, and successful and intercepted Palestinian suicide bombings.

This past September, almost seven years later, a Paris judge finally ordered that France 2 turn over the film to the court by November 14th. The trial itself is set for February 27th of 2008.

Karsenty recently visited me one afternoon and he returned two days later to speak at a gathering to honor him at my home. ...

2007.10.16

Burying the Good News

As violence falls in Iraq, cemetery workers feel the pinch

If Yahoo News keeps this up, they may just put Iowahawk and The Onion out of a job. Anyway, here's the bad news from Jay Price and Qasim Zein:

NAJAF, Iraq — At what's believed to be the world's largest cemetery, where Shiite Muslims aspire to be buried and millions already have been, business isn't good.

A drop in violence around Iraq has cut burials in the huge Wadi al Salam cemetery here by at least one-third in the past six months, and that's cut the pay of thousands of workers who make their living digging graves, washing corpses or selling burial shrouds.

Few people have a better sense of the death rate in Iraq .

"I always think of the increasing and decreasing of the dead," said Sameer Shaaban, 23, one of more than 100 workers who specialize in ceremonially washing the corpses. "People want more and more money, and I am one of them, but most of the workers in this field don't talk frankly, because they wish for more coffins, to earn more and more." ...


Now it would be unfair to hold this piece to the standards of serious journalism; it's more of a human-interest story - a slice-of-death piece, as it were. In any event, this article was the product of a number of high-calibre journalistic minds, as the footnote informs us:
Price reports for The (Raleigh) News & Observer . Zein is a McClatchy special correspondent. McClatchy special correspondents Janab Hussein , Hussein Kadhim and Sahar Issa contributed to this story.

I'm guessing that Price, Zein, and their illustrious colleagues at McClatchy detected a kindred spirit here: "People want more and more money, and I am one of them, but most of the workers in this field don't talk frankly, because they wish for more coffins, to earn more and more."

Yes indeedy. Or as another source puts it:

"Certainly, when the number of dead increases I feel happy, like all workers in the graveyard," said Basim Hameed , 30, a body washer. "This happiness comes from the increase in the amount of money we have."

Zein and Price must have felt right at home.

2007.08.07

Requiem for the Last Honest Newspaper

Spook86 breaks the bad news.

The Weekly World News, the outrageous tabloid that never let the facts get in the way of a good story, will cease publication at the end of this month.

It would be appropriate if the tabloid was vaporized by space aliens, or the final issue had been foretold by Nostradamus, but alas, the WWN suffered a more mundane fate--declining circulation among readers who actually believed the wild stories, or those merely in search of a good laugh. During its heyday in the late 1980s, the WWN had a million readers a week; in recent years, circulation has plunged below 90,000, prompting the paper's owners, American Media, to pull the plug. ...

2007.08.03

On Scott Thomas Beauchamp

Except for linking to Greyhawk's post, I've put off commenting on the business of Scott Thomas Beauchamp's article "Shock Troops" at The New Republic, because I wanted to wait until I had a good clear picture of the incident. Now that TNR has issued its response to the various questions raised about the article, I think it's time to offer a few thoughts of my own.

1. How do you determine a source's biases? That's the topic of a popular post that appeared here at DiL last year. I think the Scott Thomas Beauchamp affair is a good opportunity to review some of the ideas I presented there.

First, there's the business of anonymous (or in the case of "Scott Thomas", pseudonymous) sources. Neo cited a 2003 Poynter report - written by 18 prominent journalists in the wake of the Jayson Blair scandal - offering some suggestions for improving credibility when citing anonymous sources. Here are the Poynter report's recommendations on "attribution and sourcing", in the report's own words:

Our responsibility to the reader is to make clear where we got our information.

We focused on two areas: anonymous sources and attribution in narrative reconstructions.

The use of anonymous sources should be a last resort when the story is of compelling public interest and the information is not available any other way. A supervising editor must know the source’s identity.

We also agreed that:

• Anonymous sources should be encouraged to go on the record.

• We should weigh the source’s reliability and disclose to readers the source’s potential biases.

• The more specific we can be in describing the source in the story, the better.

• Anonymous sources should not be used for personal attacks, accusations of illegal activity, or merely to add color.

• The source must have first-hand knowledge.

• Journalists should not lie in a story to protect a source.

Journalists may not be able to avoid the use of anonymous sources in such places as Washington, D.C., but they should constantly challenge their use. The use of anonymous sources should never be routine.

News wire services should share their standards for the use of anonymous sources and aspire to the ones articulated above.

Narratives are a form of vicarious experience and put readers at the scene. We admire the power of this technique but remain concerned about making clear to the reader where the information comes from. Use deft textual attribution, detailed editor’s notes, or the newspaper equivalent of "footnotes."

The attribution in the narrative should ensure the reader knows the information is verifiable.


Well, I don't think there's really anything for me to add here, do you? In my post on source biases, I went on to suggest some factors to consider; these included:
- the source's ideological orientation
- the source's financial interests
- debts and favors
- role of the publisher or broadcaster
- the source's experiences and perceptions
- psychological factors

I also listed some factors that I think are important in determining the reliability of a piece of information:

- internal consistency
- external consistency
- insider details
- dialog and dissent
- nuance
- the human voice

For full explanations of what I mean by these terms, please go to How can you determine a source's biases? And keep them in mind as you read the rest of this post, and as you continue following the Scott Thomas Beauchamp / TNR affair.

2. Beauchamp wasn't twisted by war - he was twisted to begin with. We've already established that Scott Thomas Beauchamp is an asshole. In fact, he should probably be listed in the Wikipedia article on "asshole" ("this article may require cleanup"), but that's outside the scope of this discussion.

What is important, though, is TNR's admission that the famous (or infamous) story of Beauchamp mocking the burned and disfigured woman - with which Beauchamp begins his article - did not take place in Iraq, but in Kuwait:

The recollections of these three soldiers differ from Beauchamp's on one significant detail (the only fact in the piece that we have determined to be inaccurate): They say the conversation occurred at Camp Buehring, in Kuwait, prior to the unit's arrival in Iraq. When presented with this important discrepancy, Beauchamp acknowledged his error. We sincerely regret this mistake.

So "Beauchamp acknowledged his error," did he? Well that was mighty damn brave of him. "When presented with this important discrepancy, Beauchamp acknowledged his error." Those ten little words just tell such a story, don't they? Oh, but I'm ranting. Let's move on.

The point is, this isn't a minor detail, it's the focal point of the article. Here, I'll let TNR tell it:

Beauchamp's latest, a Diarist headlined "Shock Troops," was about the morally and emotionally distorting effects of war.

And again, that's right out of the magazine's own statement on the controversy. But the incident with the burned woman in the mess hall didn't have anything to do with "the morally and emotionally distorting effects of war", did it? Because no such "effects" could be present in someone who had not, as yet, been exposed to war.

Here's Michael Goldfarb at the Weekly Standard:

So just to be clear, the first line of the original piece stated that Beauchamp "saw her nearly every time I went to dinner in the chow hall at my base in Iraq." That turns out now to be a blatant lie--and one that Beauchamp stuck with after THE WEEKLY STANDARD first asked Foer to reveal the base at which this incident occurred. Further, TNR says in this new statement that "Shock Troops" "was about the morally and emotionally distorting effects of war." But now we find out that Beauchamp hadn't even gotten to Iraq when this incident allegedly took place. He was, in fact, a morally stunted sadist before he ever set foot in Iraq.

None of this would have come to light, of course, without the pressure and scrutiny of the military blogging community. This post at the Standard has a roundup of some of the important ones. Better yet, just go to Michael Goldfarb's main page (or his July 2007 archives) for links to the milbloggers. Kudos to Goldfarb for the hard work he's been putting into this - and of course, kudos to the milblogging community for knowing what questions to ask.

And it was the milbloggers who pinned down STB and TNR on the disfigured woman in the messhall incident. When presented with this important discrepancy, TNR acknowledged its error.

UPDATE: Right now there are a couple of new threads emerging which - if they pan out - look very bad for STB and TNR. But I haven't got anything I consider solid enough to post about yet. I'll write a new post when I've got something.

2007.07.27

Scott Thomas Beauchamp is an asshole.

Greyhawk nails it.

1. Scott Thomas Beauchamp's story is now in the hands of his superiors. They know him and his overall worth as a soldier and will decide his immediate future. If you are fortunate enough to be someone other than one of those superiors (or his wife) you are officially relieved of concern for this asshole and his future.

2. In the meantime, something to bear in mind as his story is bandied about: Scott Thomas Beauchamp is an asshole. He either did what he said he did to a disfigured woman in a DFAC (which makes him an asshole) or he fabricated the story for reasons unknown (which makes him an asshole). This same methodology can be applied to his other war stories, too.

3. As for anything else he might have to say regarding past, present, or future events: nobody in their right mind cares what an asshole has to say. ...


2007.07.24

Open Letter

Dear Martin Peretz and Franklin Foer:

Please cancel my subscription to The Nation.

Sincerely,

2007.06.10

About that KGB video

and why I'm not linking it. (Go to Pajamas Media.)

This is an example of something I think is probably true and probably important - but I'd like to have better sourcing and context before posting it. Yuri Bezmenov is (we're told) a former KGB agent, and he explains the KGB's covert tactics including "demoralization" in the US.

Now I don't doubt for a minute that the Soviet Communists did a lot of damage to America with covert operations, and it wouldn't surprise me if every word Bezmenov says is true. But here's the thing: Who is interviewing him? Where and when was the interview conducted? What do we know about Bezmenov other than what the video (and Pajamas media) tell us?

I'm an enemy of Communism. But not every enemy of Communism is a friend of mine.

Where did this video come from? And did the folks at Pajamas Media take a look at the other videos this same YouTube user has posted?

And did they notice the "88" in the guy's username?

2007.06.07

Upload, Download

Thoughts on several recent technology-related items.

Neo reports on an arrest owing, at least in part, to video technology:

An arrest has been made in the Kelsey Smith case, another almost unspeakably tragic murder in which an attractive young woman was abducted in a mall parking area and the incident was recorded by surveillance cameras.

The facts of the case make it clear that those cameras were vital in fingering the alleged perpetrator. Not only was Ms. Smith’s abduction apparently taped, but the suspect’s arrival at the store and his vehicle were likewise identified by the cameras. It is highly possible that, but for those cameras, this case would have forever gone unsolved. ...

But there’s no way that all cameras could be monitored in real time, just as anyone who really thought about the notorious telescreens in Orwell’s 1984 would have to conclude that, unless half the population were engaged in continually monitoring the other half (and then who would watch the watchers?) it just couldn’t be effectively done—except for its deterrent value, which might be enough.

To counter this problem, some surveillance cameras today are becoming “smarter,” detecting atypical movement patterns and calling attention to them by alerting a human operator (of course, for that to work, there must be at least one human operator around).

The machines are smart, but people—including perpetrators—are smart as well. Humans have found ways to thwart the cameras, but designers of the devices find ways to counter the humans, something like the race between bacteria and advances in antibiotics.


Fortunately, the antibiotics are getting stronger. Here's The Belmont Club on biometrics:
Government Computer News reports that improved computer face recognition algorithms have reduced the false recognition rate 200 fold [see comments for discussion of this figure - aa] between 2006 and 2002. "In the 2006 test [sponsored by the FBI and Homeland Security] ... the accuracy of face recognition software was documented to exceed that of humans."

The new algorithms exploit the geometric signature of the human face and the ability to read micro-patterns -- swatches of skin display a structure of pores and texture -- rather like a fingerprint. Now you can look forward to a future where cameras can scan your face to the entrance of every stadium, theater, venue and public building that a network can reach.


Here's more from the GCN article:

That face recognition technologies have improved significantly in recent years was evident in the results of the most recent Face Recognition Vendor Test sponsored by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The FRVT acted as a benchmark for the face recognition industry, allowing vendors to come forth and show what they could offer.

The results of the test, released in March, showed improvements in recognition accuracy of an order of magnitude, or 10 times better than in the previous test in 2002. ...

Another watershed in the 2006 test was that the accuracy of face recognition software was documented to exceed that of humans. According to the report, “In an experiment comparing human and algorithm performance, the best-performing face recognition algorithms were more accurate than humans.”

So what accounts for the dramatic improvement in face recognition? First, it’s important to understand the basic technologies involved in face recognition. In the initial step, an image must be captured, either by a still camera or a video camera. Next, the image may be “preprocessed” to adjust for lighting, angle or other elements of the recorded image. Finally, an algorithm is applied to extract features — known as landmarks or nodal points — from the image and compare them to data derived from other images. ...

A common problem with early face recognition technologies was that changes in lighting conditions and viewing angles could dramatically change the appearance of these features and result in different measurements for the same subject.

The better algorithms made some adjustments for such changes, but with limited data from the captured image, only limited adjustments could be made. Accordingly, face recognition systems could only deliver reasonably reliable results under very controlled conditions, where the viewing angles and lighting are controlled. ...

Another promising development has been the introduction of microfeature analysis, which essentially is a detection of patterns in skin texture. This method has only become possible with the introduction of higher-resolution cameras, and it offers an entirely new category of face landmarks.


There's another aspect I'd figure is playing into this, and that's the market. The proliferation of video technology in the hands of consumers is likely to accelerate the process still faster. That is, the fact that digital cameras are now standard equipment in cellphones and personal computers will not, in and of itself, make FVRT work better; but the fact that the market exists will provide the economic incentive for developers and investors to push ahead with improving this technology. That's what will make the difference between a technology that remains a curiosity in somebody's laboratory somewhere, and one that sees widespread development. For security and law-enforcement entities, that also means there's a motive to acquire FVRT tools - because you never know when that passed out college student who was immortalized on YouTube by his roommate might turn out to be a wanted terrorist.

And then there's the decentralization thing, which brings us back to another Belmont Club post: Where is your computer?

Although the Youtube video basically describes the Microsoft Surface product the issues it highlights have been simmering for a long time. Much of what we regard as our "computing" resources resides in no single physical place. As it becomes possible to network those resources together the sum of them eventually becoming our computing base. At some further point the computing resources associated with an individual will become so inseparably part of him that they will arguably comprise part of the personality. Where is your computer?

2007.06.05

WTF?

Volokh has the latest: Second Circuit struck down the FCC's ban on "fleeting expletives".

The chairman of the FCC is pissed.

To me, though, the most obscene and offensive part of Kevin Martin's statement is the following:

If we can’t restrict the use of the words “fuck” and “shit” during prime time, Hollywood will be able to say anything theywant, whenever they want.

G-d forbid.

2007.06.04

Free The Film

"Islam vs. Islamists" - the film PBS doesn't want you to see.

2007.05.28

The Last Xon

As you may recall from the Babylon 5 TV series, the Centauri race were originally one of two intelligent races inhabiting Centauri Prime; the other race, the Xon, were finally killed off in a great battle. Ambassador Londo Mollari provides the following account:

Ambassador Londo Mollari: Do you know what the last Xon said just before he died?
[Clutches heart]
Ambassador Londo Mollari: AAAAAAAAAAAARGHHH!

I imagine the last Xon must have sounded very much like the Washington Post's William Arkin. This, after all, is the inarticulate dying gasp of a species doomed to extinction - the leftist, anti-American mainstream media.

Unlike the hapless Xon, however, the media moghuls are not the victims of a ruthless campaign of extermination - though they may fancy themselves so. No, they have chosen and sealed their own fate by their wilful ignorance, bigotry, and, finally, irrelevance.

2007.05.26

Elizabeth in the control room, we love you.

Nancy Grace owned.

2007.05.24

TNR Discovers Socially Moderate Republicans

Thomas B. Edsall's article on Rudy Giuliani in The New Republic (registration required) indicates that someone at TNR has figured out what many of us have known for some time: that the Republican Party of today is no longer the domain of unchallenged social conservatism that it was in the 1970s - and that this bodes well for the Giuliani campaign.

What if we are witnessing not Rudy moving toward the rest of the Republican Party, but rather the Republican Party moving toward Rudy? What if the salience of a certain kind of social conservatism is now in decline among GOP voters and a new set of conservative principles are emerging to take its place? What if Giuilianism represents the future of the Republican Party?

I haven't had the chance to read the article carefully yet, but it looks fairly positive and appears to hit some of the main points that the liberal media have generally missed: that social moderates are now a strong force in the GOP; that Republicans see in Rudy Giuliani a much-needed managerial competence; and that Giuliani's no-nonsense manner and his 9/11 "street cred" are strong assets in his favor.

Here's one more snip from the article:

In brief, among Republican voters, the litmus test issues of abortion and gay marriage have been losing traction, subordinated to the Iraq war and terrorism. According to the Pew Research Center, 31 percent of GOP voters name Iraq as their top priority, and 17 percent choose terrorism and security. Just 7 percent name abortion and 1 percent name gay marriage.

The roots of this transformation predate September 11 and are partly the result of demographics. The lions of the Christian right--Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson--no longer dominate Republican politics as they once did. Their grip is slackening as their older followers are slowly replaced by a generation for which the social, cultural, and sexual mores that were overturned by the 1960s are history, not memory. In retrospect, these men reached the height of their power in the late '80s, when, by a 51-to-42 majority, voters agreed that "school boards ought to have the right to fire teachers who are known homosexuals." Now a decisive 66-to-28 majority disagrees, according to Pew. In 1987, the electorate was roughly split on the question of whether "aids might be God's punishment for immoral sexual behavior." Today, 72 percent disagree with that statement, while just 23 percent concur.

Giuliani is on the cutting edge of these trends, seeking to exploit new ideological lines between conservatism and liberalism. ...

Related.
Desperately seeking Archie Bunker.
Mary Cheney's baby.

2007.02.25

Children, Television, and Problems

The Scotsman (h/t - teh invaluable silverseabear):

Study shows ill-effects of TV more wide-ranging than initially thought
Quantity of TV and age of children viewing key elements of study
Time in front of computer screens also part of problem

Continue reading "Children, Television, and Problems" »

2007.02.17

We're doomed.

Least comforting headline of all time.

2007.02.06

BBC Interviews Ayaan Hirsi Ali

The Spirit of Man reports: 'BBC News Hardtalk program interviewed the Islamic critic Ayaan Hirsi Ali and I advise you to watch it as well. She is such a courageous woman and I admire her brave stance against Islam.'

And don't miss Ayaan Hirsi Ali's new book, Infidel.

Daniel Pipes to Speak on Fox

Via the Middle East Forum newsletter:

Daniel Pipes will appear live on Fox News Channel’s “Hannity and Colmes,” 9-10 p.m., EST, Thursday, Feb. 6 (we may send out the exact time later today).

UPDATE: Here is the exact time:

Daniel Pipes will appear live on Fox News Channel’s “Hannity and Colmes,” at 9:30 p.m., EST, Tuesday, Feb. 6.

He will discuss his talk at the University of California-Irvine on January 31, the disruption, the disrupters’ comments, and the university administration’s lack of response.

For more on this episode, see “My Talk at the University of California-Irvine,” with links and transcripts.


Daniel Pipes recalls:
My talk last night at the University of California-Irvine, on the topic of "The Threat to Israel's Existence," was disrupted just over 15 minutes into my lecture by what appear to be goons of an Islamist persuasion. Three videos on the internet document my remarks, then their response:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7799137429880565337 (anonymous) covers all 53:29 minutes of my talk, from beginning to end. The disruption begins at 15:09 with the calling out of my name. I resume speaking at 17:25.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5158780407631950723&hl=en (posted by Reut Cohen) offers 5:42 minutes of me, then the disruption, and follows the disrupters outside as they chant "anti-Israel" in conjunction with other slogans, such as "anti-oppression," "anti-racism," and "anti-hate." At one point, at 12:00, the leader predicts that "it's just a matter of time before the State of Israel will be wiped off the face of the map," in response to which the crowd, self-exiled, standing in the dark and the cold, yelled out "Takbir" and "Allahu Akbar." In response, those who remained in the auditorium chanted "Am Yisrael Chai."
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4939925831604188462&hl=en (anonymous) starts with the disruption, then jumps several minutes my replies to questions. For the wonderful standing ovation that followed on my conclusion, go to the 32:48 minute mark.

Remarks. You might be reminded, as I was, of the time when on Thursday, February 17, 2005, Richard Perle debated Howard Dean during the Tom McCall Forum at Pacific University, Portland, Oregon and one enthusiast for open and reasoned debate threw a shoe at Perle. In any event, watch for Pipes on Fox this Thursday.

2006.12.24

Mary Cheney's Baby: Answering TNR

Glen Wishard at Little Green Colloquium lets loose with both barrels on The New Republic:

Dear TNR:

I did not know that Mary Cheney was going to have a baby. Still less did I know that this baby presented a personal problem for me – a conundrum, no less. In a time of war and momentous ideological struggle, thank you for taking a moment to warn me of this fresh unforeseen threat. Forgive me if my reaction seems ungrateful.

Mary Cheney’s baby is none of your damn business. Who the hell do you people think you are, the Gay Standards & Practices Committee? Why don’t you keep your sheet-sniffing ferret noses out of other peoples’ laundry?

However many things I have failed to decry in this life, and however profound my baby-induced existential crisis is, I must decline your offer to have Andrew Sullivan dissect me for nine bucks and some change. In fact, if Andrew is looking for something to do, why don’t you tell him to get his own head and ass wired back together into some kind of functional apparatus? If he did he might start making occasional sense again.

Feel free to contact me if you have anything to say that isn’t utterly moronic.


* stands on chair and cheers loudly *

Glen adds: 'It’s not the fact that the New Republic has decided to pester a baby that makes me mad, per se. It’s the fact that so many responsible liberals, for whom TNR once served as a flag ship, still insist on retreating into frivolities like this one.' Go read the rest of this magnificent post.

I wanted to write to TNR too when I saw that article. The thing is, it's not substantially different from every other sneering piece from the left-of-center press. These are the guys that will go and dig up some quote from some fringe-right-wing group and say "Look! See what a hard time those lesbian Republicans have!"

It's because the liberal Left needs Archie Bunker. They can't deal with a rational, moderate, center-to-right mainstream; so they drag up the boogeymen they know they can defeat. And they have to convince their liberal audience, and themselves, that those Archie Bunkers are the threat to America that only they - the liberal establishment - can defeat. What a transparent farce. What an insult.

As I observed earlier, most of the news coverage of the Cheney pregnancy has been gratuitously nasty. The only unequivocally positive statement I could find came from - you guessed it - President Bush. I quoted the media on the couple of issues - specifically the lesbian couple's legal standing in their home state of Virginia and Bush's previous comments on same-sex parenting - that were legitimate and directly relevant to the story.

As my regular readers know, and as you'll know from reading my earlier posts, I do not shy away from speaking up on gay domestic issues, and I don't hesitate to criticize social conservatives when I think it's appropriate. But I also understand that the conservative world is far richer and deeper than the liberal media's caricature would allow us to believe. And I don't need the intellectual pipsqueaks at The New Republic telling me what I'm supposed to think about this.

Because, with all due respect to the late Carroll O'Connor, Archie Bunker is dead.

2006.12.13

Iran: Exposing Appeasement

Last week I said that the Baker-Hamilton report 'may be useful as a microcosm - or a Rohrshcach - of the Iraq debate. Perhaps, too, it will give the public a chance to consider, and reject, the empty and failed policies of the past.'

Michael Ledeen writing at AEI seems to be thinking along the same lines:

The Surrender Commission Report underlines the basic truth about the war, which is that we cannot possibly win it by fighting defensively in Iraq alone. So long as Iran and Syria have a free shot at us and our Iraqi allies, they can trump most any military tactics we adopt, at most any imaginable level of troops. Until the publication of the report this was the dirty secret buried under years of misleading rhetoric from our leaders; now it is front and center. Either deal effectively with Iran, or suffer a humiliating defeat, repeating the terrible humiliation of Lebanon in the Eighties when Iran and Syria bombed us out of the country (thereby providing the template for the terror war in Iraq).

The Surrender Commission members do not shrink from humiliation. They want American troops out of Iraq, and therefore they advocate appeasing the Syrians and Iranians. But a considerable number of Americans don’t want to be humiliated by the clerical fascists in Tehran, and I think it’s fair to say the recommendations have largely bombed, despite the flattering photos in Vogue, and the fawning attention from the MSM, including Time’s respectful parroting of (what they must know is) mullah disinformation, and reporting, with an obvious tone of sadness, that the Baker/Hamilton call for talks is more popular in Tehran than in America.

Time Magazine, by the way, most certainly does know what it is doing. In January I posted on Time's article by Azadeh Moaveni about Iranian dissidents. Moaveni's article itself was quite good, but as I noted at the time, a link that was meant to go to Regime Change Iran (I know this for a fact because I confirmed it by telephone with Doctor Zin) somehow appeared as "regimechange.blogspot.com" in the article - a left-wing blog, and not an Iranian opposition blog.

The error remains uncorrected to this very day. I know this because I just went back to the Time article, and there it is. I do not believe this happened by accident, but regardless of that, I contacted Time by e-mail several times requesting that they fix the error. Doctor Zin told me he had contacted Time as well. So even if the error was an accident, its perpetuation is not. Well-meaning journalists may write what they please, but what gets printed is up to the editors, as the neoconservatives interviewed by David Rose for Vanity Fair found out the hard way. (My post is here.)

Back to Ledeen.

Most Americans are disgusted at the thought of an American president kissing the Supreme Leader’s turban, as are Jim Woolsey and Jon Kyl, who put it very nicely in an open letter to President Bush. Talking to the mullahs is wrong for many reasons, they say:

First, such negotiations will legitimate that increasingly dangerous regime and reward its violent and hostile actions against us and our allies. We should rather endeavor to discredit and undermine this regime. Second, such a course will embolden our enemies who already believe they are sapping our will to resist them. Third, such an initiative would buy further time for the Iranian mullahs to obtain and prepare to wield weapons of mass destruction. Fourth, entering into negotiations with Tehran’s theocrats will create the illusion that we are taking useful steps to contend with the threat from Iran--when, in fact, we would not be. As a result, other, more effective actions--specifically, steps aimed at encouraging regime change in Iran--will not be pursued.


The ideological ground in America is shifting in many ways that cannot be reduced to red and blue numbers. The American people do not want to go back to the world of September 10. Ledeen concludes: '... Iran is waging war against us and our allies throughout the region, and a real debate about Iran may, at long last, force us to face the real (regional) strategic problem. If that happens, we can take the Woolsey/Kyl letter as a starting point for a serious war-winning policy, which must have as its basic mission the removal of the regimes in Tehran and Damascus.'

This is what I've been saying all along, and I think that when Americans are conftonted with naked appeasement, they will be disgusted. This is part of a national awakening to the media's lies, and to the truth of what is at stake in the Middle East. It's an awakening to act on our own highest values. As Ledeen is fond of saying: Faster, please.

2006.11.29

Update

I'm posting from the lovely and cozy Victoria Station Cafe in Putnam, Connecticut (panorama here), now in the second half of my two-week visit to Putnam. You might have heard Putnam mentioned in the news because of the PlayStation shooting a couple of weeks ago, which happened just before I got here. (They've now arrested a couple of suspects.)

But did you hear about the Holiday Dazzle Light Parade?

Putnam, a town of about 9,000, saw an invasion of revelers that reached monumental proportions. The 20,000 in attendance almost matched the number of people who work at Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun casinos. The 20,000 is more than a sellout for the UConn basketball team at the Hartford Civic Center. It's more people than the populations of Canterbury, Pomfret, Sterling and Woodstock combined.

The enthusiasm didn't end Sunday night. The Winter Dazzle has accounted for dizzying amounts of people visiting the Norwich Bulletin's web site, www.norwichbulletin.com to see dozens of photos of the event. People just loved this parade.

How to explain it? ...


Read the rest at the link. The announcer on the local station, WINY, was commenting this morning that the station had contacted the news media in Hartford about the event, but was told that their reporters "couldn't find" Putnam. He said they didn't have any trouble "finding" Putnam when somebody got shot. He was pretty irate, and I don't blame him.

(For the record, I've never driven in Connecticut before, and am completely unfamiliar with this part of the state - but somehow, following Route 44 from Bradley Airport through the backwoods of Connecticut in the dead of night, I managed to "find" Putnam. Go figure.)

Anyway, thanks to the magic of blogging, you can get the good news, not just the bad. I was at the parade, I took photos, and I'll post 'em. (UPDATE: Go to this post for photos.) And no, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the weighty issues facing the world today, but I'm enjoying my hiatus from political blogging and welcoming the chance for a little breathing space.

Regular posting will resume in a week.

2006.11.15

CNN's Glenn Beck Exposed: Terrorist Special

REMINDER: Don't miss this show! It starts in half an hour.
CNN.com: Glenn Beck Exposed, Wednesday, November 15 - 7PM ET

ABOUT THE SHOW
Radical Islamists are at war with the West. In a one-hour special, Glenn Beck will show you the shocking images -- rarely seen by American viewers -- that help fuel rage against Israel and the West.

Tell your friends about this. And then stay tuned to CNN for Anderson Cooper at 10pm Eastern, 7pm Pacific.

The media are finally showing the courage to tell the truth about terrorism. Let's hope this trend continues.

UPDATE: Little Green Footballs has a link to the video on YouTube.

My own reaction: I don't follow the mainstream media at all - I don't read newspapers, and I don't own a television set - so the biggest shock for me was realizing that the footage Glenn Beck was showing was a shock for other people. I like the way Beck was upfront about identifying himself as "a conservative" and "not a journalist". (Thinking back, I realize that this was also a subtle way of showing up his liberal journalist colleagues, because he's inviting the viewer to reflect on how often the pair of attributes "liberal" + "journalist" go together without being noticed.)

Good on Glenn Beck for speaking up, and as I've said before, CNN deserves a lot of credit for having the courage to air this. Keep up the good work, CNN!

2006.11.14

Comcast, al-Jazeera Marriage Goes Sour

Variety:

LONDON -- Al-Jazeera Intl. has all but conceded defeat in its effort to gain U.S. distribution in time for its worldwide launch Wednesday.
Execs at the nascent English-language offshoot of the Arab broadcaster said Comcast Communications pulled the plug on talks Monday on a deal the net considered essential to gaining a beachhead in the U.S.

The Associated Press last week reported Comcast had pulled out of talks but, in fact, negotiations continued, with Comcast offering to roll out the channel regionally. Comcast is the dominant operator in the Detroit area, which has one of the nation's largest Arab-American populations.

But AJI execs were holding out for a full rollout across all of Comcast's 12.1 million digital subscribers (Comcast has 24 million digital and analog subs), and they believed a deal was imminent.

"We thought we were just awaiting signatures. We feel like we've been led down the garden path. It's a setback for us in the States, but I don't want this to overshadow the fact we've had phenomenal figures in the rest of the world," said one AJI employee who insisted on anonymity. ...


Pamela is quite pleased.

Glenn Beck to Air Terrorist Special on CNN - HN

CNN.com: Glenn Beck Exposed, Wednesday, November 15 - 7PM ET

ABOUT THE SHOW
Radical Islamists are at war with the West. In a one-hour special, Glenn Beck will show you the shocking images -- rarely seen by American viewers -- that help fuel rage against Israel and the West.

Don't miss this! Kudos to CNN for having the courage to tell the truth about terrorism. (Hey, they even mentioned "radical islamists"!) Finally, terrorism isn't being dismissed as the paranoid fantasies of some right-wing nutball. Here's hoping CNN keeps up the good work ... and maybe the rest of the media will follow their example.

2006.11.08

Lamont defeats Lieberman!

Washington Post, August 9, 2006:

HARTFORD, Conn., Aug. 8 -- In a stark repudiation, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) narrowly lost the Democratic Senate primary here Tuesday night, falling to antiwar candidate Ned Lamont in a campaign that became a referendum on the incumbent's support for the Iraq war.

Lieberman publicly conceded the primary shortly after 11 p.m., after a congratulatory call to Lamont. But he appeared almost exuberant in defeat, telling supporters at a hotel in Hartford that he planned to run as an independent in November and predicting that he would be returned to the Senate for a fourth term.


Funny how these things work out, isn't it?
Lieberman, accused by many in his own party of being too accommodating to President Bush, also made it clear that he would try to make the general election a campaign about a tone and style of politics that he said has stalemated Washington and that he charged was at the heart of Lamont's campaign.

"I am, of course, disappointed by the results, but I am not discouraged," Lieberman said. "I'm disappointed not just because I lost but because the old politics of partisan polarization won today. For the sake of our state, our country and my party, I cannot and will not let that result stand."


Neither did the voters of Connecticut.
Lieberman faces potentially substantial hurdles in his independent candidacy, despite a poll taken early in the summer showing him winning a three-way race easily.

Don't confuse us with facts and figures and all that icky stuff.
His own party's leadership is likely to be nearly united in opposition to his candidacy, at least on the basis of their previous statements that they would back the primary winner.

But - strange to relate - he was not elected by "his own party's leadership". He was elected by the voters. Wonder what that says about the party leadership ...
Lieberman hopes to attract moderate independents and many Republicans while holding on to at least part of his Democratic support.

Lamont, who was given little chance of winning when he launched his campaign in the spring, appeared moments later before a cheering, chanting crowd of supporters at a victory party in Meriden. "They call Connecticut the land of steady habits," he said to supporters. "Tonight we voted for a big change."


I guess "they" were right after all.
Saying the time has come to "fix George Bush's failed foreign policy," Lamont said he would push for a withdrawal of U.S. forces in Iraq. "I say it's high time to bring them home to a hero's welcome," he said as his supporters began to chant "Bring them home, bring them home."

Notice that the "supporters" left out the bit about the "hero's welcome".
... It is rare that Senate incumbents lose their primaries and rarer still that they are felled by the kind of challenge that Lamont's candidacy represented. Lieberman's defeat was the result of many factors, including perceptions that he cared more about his national agenda and ambitions than he did about Connecticut. But it was the war and Democratic frustration with Bush that brought about his downfall.

Uh-huh.

2006.11.06

Neocons Blast Vanity Fair

Leading neoconservatives set the record straight in National Review Online:

On Friday, Vanity Fair issued a