Nov 02 2009

We know who leaked, but the reporter apparently doesn’t

Category: media — harmonicminer @ 9:44 am

You have to wonder how any reporter could write an article today about the Plame affair and title it Cheney told FBI he had no idea who leaked Plame ID.

Vice President Dick Cheney told the FBI he had no idea who leaked to the news media that Valerie Plame, wife of a Bush administration critic, worked for the CIA.

The entire article is an attempt to cast doubt on Cheney’s truthfulness… which is a silly exercise on the part of the reporter, a case of simple occupational ignorance, I suppose, since it is now well-known to anyone who cares to know that Richard Armitage, out of Colin Powell’s state department, was the source of the leak.

This is, by now, such old news that one must wonder if the reporter, Pete Yost, is just willfully ignorant, or merely too lazy to do a tiny bit of background research.

When Cheney said he “has no idea” who the source of the leak was in 2003 or 2004, he was probably telling the truth, since Armitage hadn’t confessed yet, and given the enmity between the Powell State Department and Cheney, it’s unlikely they were comparing notes.

However, this line from the news story is priceless:

According to courtroom testimony, Rove was one of Novak’s sources for his column disclosing Plame’s CIA identity and Rove and Libby were sources for Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper, who also wrote a story identifying Plame.

The phrase, “According to courtroom testimony,” represents a clear dodge of the facts to try to sling mud at Rove, since it doesn’t really matter what “courtroom testimony” indicated, given that Armitage didn’t confess until after the proceedings were over.    Note well that the source of the “courtroom testimony” incriminating Rove is carefully not mentioned.  The most Rove may have done is not to deny the information that Bob Novak, the person who broke the original Plame story, already had from Armitage.  You know how that conversation is likely to have gone:

Novak:  Karl, we have a confirmed report that Valerie Plame is a CIA agent and we’re going to print it.

Rove:  Bob, I really wish you wouldn’t do that…  that would be unwise, and possibly illegal. 

Novak:  Ah, so she IS a CIA agent?

Rove:  I didn’t say that.

But, of course, the cat was already out of the bag, from Armitage, and it was futile to deny it at that point.

I have no idea what Mr. Yost’s politics may be, but this particular piece of reporting is not a confidence builder.

And the broader point is that the Associated Press is simply not a reliable news organization.  You can believe about half of what you read in it…  but unfortunately you don’t know which half.

Sep 26 2009

Biased reporting on the Middle East

Category: media,middle east — harmonicminer @ 11:09 am

Here’s a nice read from the Christian Science Monitor on The unseen bias in Middle East reporting.

Of course, many of us have been able to see that bias for quite a long time, and not only in reporting about the Middle East. But it’s nice when other people notice it, too.

Sep 14 2009

911 memorial at Azusa Pacific University

Category: government,media,society,terrorism — harmonicminer @ 11:30 am

This is the flag memorial put up by a small group of students, funded by a small group of faculty and students, on the campus of Azusa Pacific University, to commemorate the murdered on September 11, 2001, by placing a flag for each murdered person.  These few proactive students are to be commended, for bothering to do something public about the memorial.

When you remember these events, and when you talk about them with other people, remember that who did the killing, and why, is an essential part of the memorial.

It makes no sense to remember “the dead” of 9/11, or “the circumstances of 9/11” without also discussing who killed them, and exactly who caused those circumstances to come about. Is it possible to have any kind of reasonable memorial of Pearl Harbor and Dec. 7, 1941, without mentioning Japan, emperor worship, and Japanese imperialism?

About the same number of people died in auto accidents in the USA in that same month.  Because the Islamic terrorist attack was an act of war,  and not merely because a few thousand people died, we said, “We will never forget.”  But, of course, most of us have.

So, in case you haven’t considered it lately, because of all the obfuscation of the major media and our politicians:

1) About 3000 innocent Americans were murdered on Sept. 11, 2001.  The American flags are the correct memorial symbol, because the dead were murdered for being Americans.

2) The killers were Muslims who believed that Allah and his designated representatives had given them both permission and instructions to do this murder. In doing it, they quoted the Koran, and the facts of Mohammed’s life that seemed to them to be both justification for and precursors of their acts.  They believed that there are no “innocent people” in the West, particularly America, and that all civilians were legitimate targets, regardless of age, gender, or occupation.  They didn’t particularly care exactly who they killed, as long as the dead were mostly Americans.  The simultaneous destruction of symbols of American power and success was especially sweet to them.

3) Large parts of the Muslim world were thrilled. Some parts of it yawned. Almost none of it was particularly distressed.

4) The Islamic forces in the world who funded the indoctrination of these killers are still in full operation, with no sign of reducing their activities. They are teaching exactly the same brand of hate around the world, including in the USA.   Saudi Arabia is the biggest funding source for the teaching of hatred world-wide.  The Saudi government denies official complicity with this, but doesn’t take the steps necessary to end it.  In the meantime, the Saudis simply own, outright, enormous numbers of American politicians, former politicians (including presidents!), lobbyists, former bureaucrats, academic departments in universities, think tanks, etc., not to mention the majority of American mosques that are funded by the Saudis.  If you’re interested, Iran is number two in funding world wide hatred for the West, possibly because it’s spending a lot of its money on developing nuclear weapons.  Between the two of them, despite their putative differences over the Sunni/Shia divide, they make a powerful tag team, the Saudis funding mostly propaganda and “soft power,” and Iran distributing weapons to anyone who will kill Americans or their allies.

5) The war with radical Islam is nowhere near over. Make no mistake: it IS a war, though it is of a new type, and harder to fight than some have been in the past.  It is not a failure to communicate.  Many Americans have largely forgotten that fact.  Our enemies have not.

Sadly, the American public will be reminded. It’s only a matter of time. When that reminder comes, huge numbers of Americans are going to forget their own foolishness, and in looking for someone (else) to blame, they are going to zero in on the government and the media for their failures to think farther ahead than the next election or ratings season.

I often suspect that, as time goes by, George Bush is going to be given very mixed reviews for his presidency, in particular for his prosecution of the war with radical Islam.

The reviews will be mixed because, by then, he is likely to be seen as not having gone far enough in defending America from its radical Islamist enemies, and their enablers.

But even when America finally wakes up, the dead will still be dead.

Do I sound too pessimistic, too doom obsessed?

That’s exactly what some people were saying about those who were predicting such things on Sept 10, 2001.

What has changed since then that would make anyone think it won’t happen again?

Too many of us talk about it as if a tornado just happened to come through New York and take the towers down, as if it were an “act of God.”

Of course, some parties to the day’s events saw it that way, too.

Sep 07 2009

Crystal ball redux

Category: Islam,media,Obama,society — harmonicminer @ 9:35 am

Someone asked me the other day how my post-election predictions were turning out, regarding press coverage of Obama and other matters.

It’s a bit early to know.  But one thing is becoming apparent:  the electorate is significantly less happy with the reality of Obama than the hope and change they thought they voted for.  So far, the press has not begun to savage Obama in the ways I thought might happen.  But Obama is finally beginning to be criticized for his sheer incompetence, the biggest evidence of which is his mismanagement of the process and the message surrounding his attempted takeover of US healthcare, though his astronomical deficit plans are a close second.  And, of course, the matters are related.  Those enormous deficits are the projections of Obama’s plans if the government takeover of healthcare is NOT passed.   If it is, everything is worse.  Far worse.

To be fair, it was bound to be a hard sell.  Americans are a cantankerous lot when they see (though they are a bit slow) that their freedom is about to be stolen.  But Obama’s twin errors were: 1) leaving it up to Pelosi and Reid to craft a bill and 2) telling obvious lies that could be checked (“You can keep your current health insurance if you like it, even if this plan becomes law.”)  Pelosi and Reid are so far inside the beltway that they simply had no concept of how bad it was going to look to Americans that congress-critters hadn’t read the bill, didn’t understand it, couldn’t defend it based on facts about its contents, but wouldn’t themselves be willing to live under “the public option” as a matter of course.   Obama was foolish to trust them in this.  Of course, Obama’s lack of experience in national politics, and in managing a political situation not in control of a Chicago-like machine, is what really betrayed him.

He compounded it by doubling down on obvious lies.  Nothing in the bill would stop any employer from throwing employees into the “public option,” and plenty in the bill would provide them with motivation to do so.  Americans began to see that the promises were mutually incompatible, which included coverage for the “uninsured,” lower prices, freedom to choose your providers, no tax increase, and no rationing.  It was as if someone tried to convince them that you really CAN have it “good, fast and cheap.”  Americans know better, when they start paying attention.

Many Americans felt robbed by the arbitrariness of “cash for clunkers,” knowing that it was a straight government giveaway for which THEY could not qualify, but would surely pay.  Twinned with this is the planned trillion-dollar-deficits-per-year for the next decade, even if the Obama, Pelosi and Reid are NOT able to extend government’s already partially accomplished takeover of healthcare.  And that’s probably optimistic, based on current projections.  Americans got numb to billions….  but trillions is something else entirely.  And they simply don’t want to pay it.  To be blunt, they’re terrified of it.

Regarding another prediction I made, I continue to believe that if the terrorists want Obama to be president for two terms, they’d be wise to just hold off attacking the US until his second term.  Such an attack, in the face of Obama’s prosecution of those who would protect us, namely the CIA, would surely result in yet more support peeling off from him.  He might try to regain that support by taking some dramatic action… but it would probably be of no more worth than Clinton bombing aspirin factories in the Sudan.

Support is also peeling off on Obama’s left.  In particular, the anti-war types who were seduced by Obama’s Iraq pullout plans have to be disappointed that he is adding troops to Afghanistan, and seems relatively serious about following the advice of his generals….  nearly the only thing Obama has done right so far.  Peaceniks are getting off the bus in droves, apparently having signed up for the wrong tour package.

In the meantime, I think one aspect of my predictions is right.  The press is STILL not seriously criticizing Obama’s policies, but it is starting to criticize Obama the man and president for his failures to carry them out.  As disdain for the puerility of their annointed choice begins to grow, some of that may yet lead to the investigative journalism that should have been done before the elections.

There is such a thing as a need to survive.  As the public distrust for Obama grows, if the press continues to support him and/or his policies unrealistically, its credibility gap will only grow.  At some point, the people who own the newspapers and networks that are hemorrhaging readers and viewers will start to count the cost.

When and if major media outlets start reporting on how other outlets sat on stories that would have damaged Obama during the election season, you’ll know the world has shifted.  There are probably a lot more of these than we know.  The dynamic will be simple: reporters share info over drinks.  One lets slip that his editor sat on something damaging to Obama.  The other reporter, desperate to salvage a sinking career and job prospects (and there are a LOT of people in that situation), talks his similarly desperate editor into publishing or broadcasting.  And the feeding frenzy begins.  There’s a LOT of that stuff out there.

I wonder how many more job losses NBC and MSNBC will have to have, how many more major newspapers will have to cut jobs or worse, before simple survival instinct sets in.  It’s a toss up… are they just loopy, or are they lemmings?

But no one believes them anymore.

Sep 04 2009

The double standard of photographic realism

Category: abortion,media,military,society — harmonicminer @ 3:21 pm

The AP has decided to print the photo of a young marine as he is dying, despite the expressed wishes of his family and the Secretary of Defense that the soldiers privacy be respected and the photo not be released. The AP is doing this in the name of “journalistic realism” and “telling the real story of the Afghan war.”

The AP reported that the Marine’s father had asked, in an interview and in a follow-up phone call, that the image, taken by an embedded photographer, not be published.

The AP reported in a story that it decided to make the image public anyway because it “conveys the grimness of war and the sacrifice of young men and women fighting it.”

The photo shows Lance Cpl. Joshua M. Bernard of New Portland, Maine, who was struck by a rocket-propelled grenade in a Taliban ambush Aug. 14 in Helmand province of southern Afghanistan, according to The AP.

Gates wrote to Thomas Curley, AP’s president and chief executive officer. “Out of respect for his family’s wishes, I ask you in the strongest of terms to reconsider your decision. I do not make this request lightly. In one of my first public statements as Secretary of Defense, I stated that the media should not be treated as the enemy, and made it a point to thank journalists for revealing problems that need to be fixed, as was the case with Walter Reed.”

“I cannot imagine the pain and suffering Lance Corporal Bernard’s death has caused his family. Why your organization would purposefully defy the family’s wishes knowing full well that it will lead to yet more anguish is beyond me. Your lack of compassion and common sense in choosing to put this image of their maimed and stricken child on the front page of multiple American newspapers is appalling. The issue here is not law, policy or constitutional right, but judgment and common decency.”
……………

Morrell said Gates wanted the information about his conversations released “so everyone would know how strongly he felt about the issue.”

The Associated Press reported in a story about deliberations about that photo that “after a period of reflection,” the news service decided “to make public an image that conveys the grimness of war and the sacrifice of young men and women fighting it.

“The image shows fellow Marines helping Bernard after he suffered severe leg injuries. He was evacuated to a field hospital where he died on the operating table,” AP said. “The picture was taken by Associated Press photographer Julie Jacobson, who accompanied Marines on the patrol and was in the midst of the ambush during which Bernard was wounded. … ‘AP journalists document world events every day. Afghanistan is no exception. We feel it is our journalistic duty to show the reality of the war there, however unpleasant and brutal that sometimes is,’ said Santiago Lyon, the director of photography for AP.

It is the policy of essentially every mainstream news organization, including the AP, NOT to print photos that show the reality of abortion, and what aborted unborn human beings look like.  They won’t show what aborted human beings look like after being aborted at 9 weeks, or 15 weeks, or 24 weeks, or 30 weeks.  It would be “too disturbing,” it seems.  But they will show other, equally or even more distubing photos without apparent restraint, whenever it fits the news agenda of the day. 

Some newspapers won’t even run print ads paid by pro-life organizations if they tell the truth too accurately about abortion, and they may even object to accurate descriptions of abortion, let alone photos of the killed human being that results from it.  I would go further with this…  but you already know it’s true, don’t you?  Because you have just about never seen a picture of an aborted baby in any major newspaper, newsmagazine or network TV broadcast, have you?  But you have routinely seen bodies piled high in Holocaust photos, people being shot in the back of the head in executions by totalitarian regimes, and many other horrible, but true, events.

The cognitive dissoance is stunning, because on the one hand the mainstream media buys into the lie that aborted babies aren’t really people, just some kind of thing that could have developed into one…  and on the other hand, it is apparently more disturbing to them to show a photo of an aborted fetus than to show the murder of someone they DO accept as a full human being.  I guess it’s just too disturbing to show a photo of the death of a non-person.

It seems that photographically telling the truth about abortion is NOT on the news agenda….  but showing the last moments on earth of a mortally wounded soldier IS.

Pray for the family of the deceased soldier, as their pain is increased by this barbarous decision.

Sep 02 2009

Muslim denunciations of terrorism: how should we evaluate them?

Category: Islam,media,terrorism,theology — harmonicminer @ 9:02 am

It has become common for Muslim apologists, responding to the criticism that Muslims don’t condemn terrorism, to quote this imam or that, saying something that seems like a criticism.  Most of us in the west have little ability to determine the worth of these “criticisms.”  Is this something being said one way to the west, when the media are listening, and another way to the Muslim audience?  Is it a carefully worded “sympathy for the families of the dead” or is it a full-throated condemnation of the terrorist act as unIslamic and immoral, without equivocation or ambivalence?  After all, we give sympathy to the families of justly executed murderers.  Such sympathy hardly constitutes condemnation of the judge, the jury, the law or the executioners.

Another response is to say that the west is just as morally ambivalent about its own failings.  This article compares Muslim reluctance to condemn clear moral failure on the part of other Muslims to the tendency by modern Americans (including in the North) to whitewash the Confederate role in the Civil War, to call great generals of the South “heroes,” etc., when in fact they were fighting for a “state’s right” to protect the chattel ownership of human beings.  Of course, that war ended 145 years ago… there was less tendency in the North to be ambivalent about it at the time.  And this highlights another tendency of Muslim apologists, to point at western history, because there isn’t much they can point to now that compares to bombing African embassies, 9/11, the London Tube bombings, the Spanish train bombings,  the incredible carnage wrought in Iraq by Al Qaeda, the BATH killers, the Shia killers, the Indonesian Islamist killers, the Pakistani killers in Mumbai, etc., etc., etc., ad endless nauseam.

Occasionally something like this appears: Indian Muslims under pressure in Mumbai aftermath

“We strongly believe terrorists have no religion and they do not deserve a burial,” said Maulana Zaheer Abbas Rizvi of the All India Shia Personal Law Board, a body for framing Muslim laws.

This is good, but it’s in the same league as the pastor of a large church in Oklahoma condemning Timothy McVeigh, with perhaps tepid support from his denomination, but not much from a national umbrella church organization like the National Council of Churches or the National Association of Evangelicals, let alone wider Christendom.   The Shia are a distinct minority in India at about 10% of the approximately 100 million Muslims.

It’s tempting to put all Muslim denunciations of terrorism in the same category, but it’s a mistake.  It is not unusual for (especially) moderate Muslims to denounce the murder of other Muslims by Islamists.   How many of those same people say anything about rocketing Israeli civilians?

Even CAIR “denounces” terrorism, all the while it supports it via the Holy Land Foundation’s funneling of cash to Hamas.  Denunciations of terrorism, lacking specifics of who did what to whom, are cheap.  Ask CAIR to condemn a specific jihadi’s murder of innocents and all you usually get is, “We condemn all terrorism.”  And that’s code for, “We’re not going to name names.  And Israel is a terrorist nation.”   A ringing moral condemnation does not begin with, “Yes, but…”

So regarding Muslim denunciations of bad behavior by Muslims, some discernment is required.  Yes, you can find the occasional scholar or Imam who denounces it (though it often lacks those specifics).  But is it a scholar who is important in the Muslim world, or merely one who is popular with western elites as a “moderate spokesperson”?  It is well documented that many Muslim spokespeople say one thing in English to western media, and something else entirely to their own people, in their own language.  When a “Christian” murders an abortionist (which happens about once every ten years in the USA), virtually EVERY Christian leader speaks out against it instantly, in practical terms, including very conservative anti-abortion activists, both Protestant and Catholic.  You don’t need to look for “moderate Christians,” or “Christian scholars,” or something.  The Jerry Falwells, James Dobsons, Bishop Chaputs, the Popes, Pat Robertsons, Christian leaders of every stripe, Christian academics, the National Council of Churches, the National Association of Evangelicals, virtually every pro-life group and conservative talk-show host will condemn in unison the murder of the abortionist “in the name of Christ.”  And this is the response to only ONE person’s murder “in the name of Christ,” about every ten years.

Is it possible to contend that there is anything even remotely close to this in the Muslim world?  Instead, we see people dancing in the street at the murder of thousands.  We see a “compassionately released” terrorist, reponsible for the deaths of hundreds, greeted as a conquering hero by national leaders and clerics (most recently in Lybia, but it’s a common pattern, isn’t it?).   Imagine if Timothy McVeigh had driven his diesel-laced fertilizer truck up to the Al-Hussein Mosque in Cairo, instead of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, and said God told him to do it.  When the Egyptians released him on “compassionate parole” in 30 years (you’re laughing hysterically, right?), do you think his return would be celebrated by the President of the USA, national religious leaders, an adoring press, and public acclaim?

One “out” that is sometimes taken is to say that there is “no recognized single leader” in Islam.  But there isn’t in Christianity, either.  If you consulted with the Pope, the Archibishop of Canterbury, the National Council of Churches, the National Association of Evangelicals, maybe some worldwide Protestant denominations and a few national Orthodox churches, and they all agreed, you could reasonably say “Christianity has spoken.”  And they all condemn the murder of abortionists, even though most are pro-life (with the notable exception of the National Council of Churches organizations, of course, which mostly represent dying denominations).

As I understand it, there are four “schools” of Islamic jurisprudence in Sunni Islam, and two in Shia Islam.  Those schools have well-known leaders, perhaps two or three important ones in each case.  It would be most persuasive if THOSE leaders spoke in unison that the murder of non-Muslims by jihadis is immoral and unIslamic.  But people in the west don’t listen clearly.  Some of these guys have “expressed sympathy” for the families of the killed on 9/11.   That is not the same thing as a ringing condemnation of the acts of the terrorists, and the public assurance to their own people, in their own people’s native languages, that the acts were sin, were unIslamic, would have been condemned by Muhammed, and did not earn the perpetrators a place in paradise.  Has THAT happened?  Or should we accept the PR statements of “moderates” who know that they’re talking to the western media in English or French?  Does Islam even teach that it is a sin to lie to non-Muslims for the sake of protecting the reputation of Islam?   Google “Al-taqiyya.”  (Qur’an 3:28: “Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers. If any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah; except by way of precaution, that ye may guard yourselves from them”.  This verse has been used, it seems, to justify lying to infidels in the defense of Islam.)

Let’s be really clear.  Imagine that 20 “Christians” hijacked four airliners filled with people from Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and Iran, and flew them into, say,

1) the Masjid al-Haram mosque in Mecca at full occupancy,

2) the Prophet’s Mosque in Medina during the hadj, and maybe

3) the Haghia Sophia in Istanbul during Friday prayers, along with aiming one at

4) the palace of the Saudi family in Riyadh.

The entire Christian world would rise up in breathless horror.  Can you imagine the SCOPE of the reaction, the revulsion, the utter shame, and the rejection by the Christian world that this had anything to do with Christ or Christianity?  Can you imagine the thousands of recriminations that Christians would direct at each other, the self-examination, the zillions of study sessions to reinforce traditional Christian teaching on murder that would result in churches, christian schools and colleges, etc.?

Would we be willing to settle for a nice statement from the pastor of the First Baptist Church in Dayton and an obscure professor of “Christian studies” somewhere that “we’re sorry for the victims’ families”?  Would we immediately put out PR statements hoping that this wouldn’t lead to “Christophobia” and “hate crimes” against innocent Christians?  Would we have to look for cherry picked Christian spokesmen to say “moderate” sounding things to the media?  And let’s be clear:  would Christians in ANY Muslim plurality nation be anywhere near as safe as Muslims have been in the USA after 9/11?

And would even the most conservative Bible Belt town in the South have a spontaneous dance of joy in the public square over the murder of those godless infidels, by right-thinking American boys with scout knives who hijacked airliners full of unbelievers?

I am waiting for an Islamic cleric in a prominent position in one of those six schools of Islamic jurisprudence to say that the killers of 9/11 are most likely in Hell, and belong there under Islamic teaching, as do those who are now emulating them.

And the notion that all six schools’ major representatives will make such a statement?  I suspect the Lord will return first.

Aug 29 2009

The real racists are….

Category: guns,media — harmonicminer @ 9:25 am

Of guns and racism, who’s the racist now?

You may have heard of the recent contretemps surrounding people carrying weapons openly to townhall meetings, etc., not with the intent to use or threaten, but purely as a statement in favor of the Second Amendment. At the link above, some video about highly slanted news coverage (you won’t believe this if you don’t already know about it), and some interesting history about the racist nature of firearms restrictions in US history. Hint: guess which was the group that first had restrictions on its right to own firearms?

Aug 22 2009

Where’s the outrage?

Category: abortion,left,media,science,terrorism — harmonicminer @ 9:00 am

Animal activists torch home of Novartis chief

Anti-vivisectionists in Austria are thought to be behind a string of attacks on the Swiss-based pharmaceuticals giant Novartis.

In the most recent attack, on Monday in the Austrian town of Bach, activists are believed to have set fire to the holiday home of the company’s chief executive officer, Daniel Vasella. A fire accelerant was found at the scene, suggesting it was started deliberately, reports Reuters.

Last week, activists desecrated the graves of Vasella’s parents, stealing an urn containing the remains of his mother. That echoes a similar incident in the UK in 2004, when activists dug up a coffin and stole the remains of a woman whose family had run a business breeding guinea pigs for research.

If this had been done to an abortionist, it would have made major headlines around the world, accompanied with bloodcurdling cries of “terrorist!” and dark comparisons to “religious fundamentalists” who have violent tendencies.  Of course, in this case, since the religion in question is earth-worshipping paganism, and the target was the CEO of an evil corporation (never mind that abortion is ALSO big business, VERY big business, but one that is considered holy by some people), no such connections will be made.

In Austria, the activists also left the message “Drop HLS Now” on the headstone of Vasella’s mother’s grave, a warning for Novartis to cease funding animal experiments at Huntingdon Life Sciences – a company in the UK that conducts animal experiments for pharmaceutical companies.

Huntingdon Life Sciences has been the focus of a huge campaign by activists whose leaders are now mostly in jail following trials last year. But Novartis says it has not worked with HLS for years.

About three weeks ago, graffiti attacking Novartis and Vasella was scrawled over the church in Vasella’s village of Risch in central Switzerland. According to CNBC, messages have also been left on roads (with video) near Vasella’s home, including: “Vasella is a killer”, “We are watching you”, “Death to Vasella”, and “We’ll be back”.

What’s really crazy: this sort of talk wouldn’t even qualify as “hate speech” under the USA hate speech laws that the Democrat congress is trying to ram through. That’s because people who support basic medical research that saves lives are not a protected group.

Exit question: did you hear about this story ANYWHERE else in the media? If you did, did it get anything like the play it would have gotten if it was about something done to an abortionist? This post is going to be posted about two weeks after the events. So there will have been plenty of time for the coverage to happen…. if anyone cares.

Class dismissed.

Aug 12 2009

God, guns, guts, American trucks, and clueless “reporters”

Category: economy,guns,media — harmonicminer @ 9:03 pm

Mark Muller is giving away an AK-47 (presumably the civilian legal semi-auto only version, which does NOT qualify as an “assault weapon”) with every new truck he sells.  Well, he’s giving them a voucher so that if they can qualify for the legal purchase of the weapon, they can use the voucher to buy it from a licensed gun store.

Watch this thing, and then notice how utterly, completely, risibly clueless this interviewer is. Observe what she must think:

1) If you need to defend yourself, your gun shouldn’t be TOO good. You might actually survive the encounter, and we wouldn’t want that, would we?

2) God doesn’t want us to defend ourselves or our loved ones. I hope she doesn’t have children.  Or loved ones.  All of whom deserve better from her.  Or, she was just asking a stupid question for which she didn’t believe the premise herself.  Either way, clueless.

3) She’s obviously ignorant about the definition of “assault weapon.” Civilian legal versions of the AK-47 aren’t assault weapons, because they are semi-automatic ONLY, one round per trigger pull, exactly like semi-auto hunting rifles.  But wait, she went to journalism school, I’m sure.  And we know that they always do their background research, right?  (Sidebar:  if someone wants to kill me from a distance, I HOPE they’re using an AK-47 and not a typical American semi-auto rifle, which is usually a LOT more accurate.  With the AK, they’ll probably miss the first shot, and I’ll hear it and have time to seek cover.  Hey…  this is starting to remind me of faculty meetings, in which I spend lots of time taking cover.)

4)  She apparently thinks that Jesus doesn’t want parents to protect their children, each other, or themselves.  Or she doesn’t think that, and is just asking another disingenuous question of the country bumpkin rube auto dealer. 

Keep in mind that these geniuses are the ones reporting to us on nationalized healthcare, foreign policy, the economy, and political intrigue  everywhere.  You decide if you think they’ve done any more background research on that than on this story.

Aug 09 2009

From Russia With Love, Part 2

Category: media,Russia — harmonicminer @ 8:53 am

What’s Behind Russia’s Killing Spree?

As the Telegraph puts it, “there used to be three key people when it came to uncovering human rights abuses in Chechnya, the journalist Anna Politkovskaya, the lawyer Stanislav Markelov, and the human rights researcher Natalia Estemirova. In the space of less than three years, they’ve all now been murdered.”

This begs the question: what are they saying that the Russian government is trying to silence?

Remember when it was popular to compare Bush to Hitler, call him a fascist, and imply that he was a dictator in disguise, trampling the constitution, blah endless blah?  There were panic sticken journalists and pundits everywhere, in great feat that the evil forces of government oppression were going to fall upon them any day now.

It never happened, of course, because George W. Bush was a principled man who believed the Constitution actually meant what it said, and he agreed with it.

I live for the day when the more extreme American journalists and pundits will move to Russia, and start saying the same things about Putin or Medvedev that they said about Bush.   The difference, of course, is that this time what the screaming lefties said would be true.

Although that would not protect them.

« Previous Page — Next Page »