Archive for Media Bias

Hope and Change

Well, change anyway.

President Obama, September 3rd:

“We can continue to shrink ISIL’s sphere of influence, its effectiveness, its financing, its military capabilities to the point where it is a manageable problem.”

President Obama, September 5th:

“You can’t contain an organization that is running roughshod through that much territory, causing that much havoc, displacing that many people, killing that many innocents, enslaving that many women. The goal has to be to dismantle them.”

“Dismantle” is a little closer to “gates of hell” than “manageable” is, for which much thanks. But he needed David Cameron’s balls to get even that far.

I happened to hear the week-in-review roundtable on NPR’s On Point this morning. The Atlantic’s former editor, Jack Beatty, a five-star general among Obama apologists, first tried to paint Russia’s invasion as merely “exerting power on its border”. Tell that to Crimea. Tell that to Donetsk. David Ignatius chimed in that Putin’s territorial gain came at great cost: a hostile government in Kiev, a united Europe against him. He claimed Putin was playing a weak hand. Tell that to Putin. This sounds like the same tone deaf talk that appeased Hitler. Not one person mentioned Obama’s Chamberlain-esque pose.

When talk turned to the Middle East, Beatty got his second wind. He quoted an administration source as saying that “avoiding another Iraq is his guiding principle”. Beatty followed with “it seems to me that’s also the guiding principle of the American people…. We don’t want this.”

Don’t we? Of course we don’t, if you put it in those terms. Who wants “another Iraq”? But do we want our reporters getting their heads chopped off (other than the 75-80 we could all agree on)? Do we want to see their unrivaled savagery (too savage for Al Qaeda) rip asunder whole countries and regions? Do we want what’s happening over there to be happening over here?

No wonder Obama looks uncertain, Beatty declared, uncertainty is the reality. That’s one way of looking at it.

Another way is that you can’t run your affairs by trying to be different from the other guy. Avoiding “another Iraq” is a dog whistle for George Bush; so is “don’t do stupid stuff”. But the world Bush had to deal with, for better or worse, is five and a half years in the past, an eternity. Most of his big decisions are a decade old by now. Facing today’s realities with policies based on rejecting the previous president’s policies is almost too idiotic to write, let alone implement. And now that Obama is in Bush’s shoes (several sizes too big for him), he should have the decency and maturity to acknowledge that maybe he sees things a little differently.

Lastly, ISIS is not really “another Iraq”, but Iraq II:

On the eve of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, a 36-year-old Jordanian who called himself “the Stranger” slipped into the suburbs of Baghdad armed with a few weapons, bags of cash and an audacious plan for starting a war he hoped would unite Sunni Muslims across the Middle East.

The tattooed ex-convict and high school dropout had few followers and scant ties to the local population. Yet, the Stranger — soon to be known widely as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi — quickly rallied thousands of Iraqis and foreign fighters to his cause. He launched spectacular suicide bombings and gruesome executions targeting Americans, Shiites and others he saw as obstacles to his vision for a Sunni caliphate stretching from Syria to the Persian Gulf.

Zarqawi was killed in a U.S. airstrike in 2006, but the organization he founded is again on the march. In just a week, his group — formerly known as al-Qaeda in Iraq and now called the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS — has seized cities and towns across western and northern Iraq at a pace that might have astonished Zarqawi himself. Already in control of large swaths of eastern Syria, the group’s black-clad warriors appear to have taken a leap toward realizing Zarqawi’s dream of an extremist Sunni enclave across the region.

The mission is still not “accomplished”, President Obama. It’s been your responsibility since you took the oath of office.

No fair leaving it for the next guy:

“This, as the President has said, is going to have to be a sustained effort. … It’s going to take time, and it will probably go beyond even this administration to get to the point of defeat.”

Do your effing job.

Comments (2)

The Jew-Hating Left

I read every word Caroline Glick writes, but I cite these few as especially worthy of your attention:

The only meaningful commonality between Islamist and leftist dogma is hatred for Jews with power, first and foremost for Israel. And the singular creation of this alliance is the sides’ joint determination that it isn’t racist to hate the Jewish state, or Jews who refuse to condemn it.

In this state of affairs, the only outlet that leftists have for their moral outrage is Israel. Because while they fear being called racist, they know that being anti-Semitic will not expose them to charges of racism.

And they know Jews won’t assault them for attacking Israel and its supporters. So they project all the crimes perpetrated by Islamic fanatics on Israel.

For instance, this week Megan Marzec, the president of Ohio University’s Student Senate, posted a video of herself dousing herself in a bucket of “blood.”

Marzec explained, “This bucket of blood symbolizes the thousands of displaced and murdered Palestinians – atrocities which OU is directly complacent in [sic] through cultural and economic ties with the Israeli state.”

In other words, she accused Israel of the crimes Hamas seeks to inflict on Israel, and of the crimes that Islamist forces, such as al-Qaida, Islamic State and Boko Haram, are currently carrying out in their areas of operations.

Consider the recent New York Times op-ed by Antony Lerman which ran under the title “The End of Liberal Zionism.”

Lerman insisted that there is no way to square Zionism with liberal values.

According to this disaffected Jewish leftist, “The only Zionism of any consequence today is xenophobic and exclusionary, a Jewish ethno-nationalism inspired by religious messianism. It is carrying out an open-ended project of national self-realization to be achieved through colonization and purification of the tribe.”

Huh? Who? Where? Even my man Moshe Feiglin, about as far to the right as there is in Israeli national politics (by my reckoning), would accept Arab citizens from an annexed Gaza, or pay them to relocate if they didn’t want to stay.

But if you can write it, someone will print it:

Lerman quoted an article published a few weeks before his in The New York Review of Books by Jonathan Freedland titled “Liberal Zionism After Gaza.”

Freedland argued that as the two-state solution becomes more and more remote, liberal Zionists “will have to decide which of their political identities matters more, whether they are first a liberal or first a Zionist.”

That does it. Cry havoc! And let slip the dogs of Glick:

But this is of course absurd. The only way a person can uphold liberal values is by being a Zionist. Israel is the only country in the region that is a human rights-respecting liberal democracy that is governed by the rule of law.

What is becoming more and more difficult is being a Zionist while being a leftist. As the Left becomes more and more tied to Islamic fanatics, anti-Semitism is going to become more and more of a staple of leftist dogma. And that anti-Semitism will express itself first and foremost as a virulent rejection of Israel and of Jews who refuse to disavow and condemn the Jewish state.

Sotloff reportedly maintained faith with his Judaism in secret while in captivity. He refused food on Yom Kippur and secretly prayed toward Jerusalem.

In so doing, he showed that the evil that controlled him physically, could not penetrate his soul. For this he died a Jewish hero.

Leftist Jews must take a lesson from Sotloff, who was reportedly a product of a Jewish-leftist worldview.

They should understand that the decision they are being required to make is not a choice between liberalism and Zionism, but between liberalism and a reactionary dogma that sits comfortably with genocidal Jew-haters and misogynist oppressors. It shouldn’t be a particularly difficult choice.

If you’re not wiping a tear from your eye, you have no soul.

Comments

Welcome to Our World

It may be nasty and brutish, but—unlike the fantasies dreamed of by the Left and spread by the media—at least it’s real:

A sickening photograph has emerged of a tiny baby lying on an ISIS flag surrounded by guns and hand grenades.

The chilling image is the latest photo believed to have been posted by militants fighting in Syria and Iraq as part of their online propaganda campaign.

It shows the child – who appears to be less than six months old – lying on its back on the black flag now associated with the group terrorising the Middle East.

Where other babies its age might have soft toys scattered around them, the child has been cynically positioned next to a Kalashnikov rifle, a pistol and hand grenades.

The photo caused a furious backlash online, with one user accusing the organisation of using ‘babies as weapons to kill the innocent’.

And we can’t have that!

Self-styled Palestinian Arabs have been glorifying infanticide for decades—for Muslim as well as Jewish babies and children—and the world can barely rouse itself to clean its left nostril.

One picture of a ISIS baby similarly attired and the world is horrified. Sorry to wake you, people, but its way past time you woke up to reality.

Comments (1)

Hosanna Montana

Remember Todd Akin? Neither do we, but evidently he was a towering figure in the Republican Party. Every Republican in the country, from presidential hopeful to candidate for dog catcher, was obliged to answer for some ignorant comment he made about rape. He must have been really important.

Almost as important as Amanda Curtis:

Meet Democrat Amanda Curtis. She took over as the Democrat Senate candidate in Montana after Democrat John Walsh disgraced himself by cheating on his Army War College thesis (As an actual Army War College graduate, I’d like to say, “Thanks for that, Johnny – those of us who did the hard work to actually earn our masters degrees really appreciate you devaluing it.”) Now Democrat Amanda Curtis is running as a free-spirited progressive, unconstrained by things like class and dignity and the concerns of her constituents.

[U]nlike the goofy womyn’s studies majors we laughed at back in school, we can’t just ignore her. Nor, try as they might, can her fellow Democrat Senate candidates.

Democrat Mark Begich, where do you stand on Democrat Amanda Curtis’s attack on women’s right to be free of sexual assault? Do you consider women’s safety an appropriate topic of humor? Do you stand with the right of Alaskan women to exercise their Second Amendment right to protect themselves from violent crime, or do you support a candidate from your Democrat Party who will vote with the rest of the liberals in your Democrat Party to deprive women of that right?

Democrat Mark Pryor of Arkansas, where have you been as Democrat candidate Amanda Curtis was insulting and rolling her eyes at the mere mention of Christianity?

Democrat Mark Pryor, do you support your Democrat Party’s candidate when she thinks the religion that most of your constituents hold dear is a punchline?

Democrat Allison Lundergan Grimes of Kentucky, where do you stand on Democrat Amanda Curtis’s anti-Christian hate speech? Do you stand with the people Kentucky or with the liberal Democrat establishment in Washington, D.C.? Your silence is your answer.

Democrat Kay Hagan of North Carolina, why do you think it is okay for your fellow Democrat to make fun of Christians, and then to roll her beady eyes at the mere mention of the idea of family? Is that what you believe? Why do you want this woman in the Senate?

Democrat Michelle Nunn of Georgia, why aren’t you raising your voice against this kind of mindless progressive bigotry? You made a big deal of refusing to promise to vote for Democrat Harry Reid as majority leader, but in your first test you’ve chosen to tolerate the anti-Christian, anti-family hate of Democrat Amanda Curtis just because she’s in your Democrat Party.

Democrat Bruce Braley, be like Republican Joni Ernst and emulate the example of courage that this Army lieutenant colonel has displayed by standing up to your Democrat Party for its nomination of an anti-Christian, anti-family, anti-woman extremist.

Democrat Amanda Curtis is truly the Todd Akin of this election cycle, yet in contrast to the Republicans, who immediately repudiated Todd Akin’s bizarre biological misconceptions, the Democrats, by their silence, tacitly admit that they either support their Democrat Party over the people of their states or that they agree with Democrat Amanda Curtis’s radical and extreme agenda.

Why do you choose the Democrat Party over your people? The time is now to repudiate the anti-family, anti-Christian and anti-woman views of Democrat Amanda Curtis.

Todd Akin was just as irrelevant (or relevant) to the Republican Party as Amanda Curtis is (or isn’t) to the Democrats. I just wouldn’t want to be accused of not affording her equal treatment.

PS: The last poll from about two weeks ago had Curtis down by 20 points—too close for my liking.

Comments

In Defense of “No Strategy”

The media circles the wagons:

There is a fun foreign policy game making all the rounds in Washington D.C. this summer: Pin the tail on Barack Obama.

There are no points for understanding how international relations work, how U.S. power is actually utilized or how other countries interpret their own interests. There’s no space on the board for tracking the real-life impact of your recommendations.

Foreign policy stewardship would be easy if it were as simple as playing this game. If, as President Obama joked recently, America “control(led) everything around the world,” there wouldn’t be much to decide at all.

See? “Strategies” are fanciful constructs, mere whims. They are policy variations on the old line, “Want to make God laugh? Tell him your plans.” Obama’s too smart for that.

We’re just not smart enough to see it:

White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer said Obama will continue to move at his own speed to respond to these crises, regardless of criticism. “There’s no timetable for solving these problems that’s going to meet the cable news cycle speed,” he said. “It’s not a tenable thing. We’d much rather do this right than do it quickly. We tried the opposite [during the Bush years] and it worked out very poorly.”

This week, Obama will have an opportunity to show global leadership at a crisis-packed summit with European allies. Immediately afterward, Secretary of State John F. Kerry will travel to the Middle East, where potential partners, waiting to see whether Obama has the capacity to chart a clear, decisive course, are hoping for direction.

Obama does have one strategy: blame Bush. It’s worked for him so far.

And then, there are those who don’t take the president at his word:

President Obama’s critics often claim he doesn’t have a strategy in the greater Middle East. That’s wrong. Like it or loathe it, he does, and he’s beginning to implement it against ISIS. To understand what it is, it’s worth going back seven summers.

No, no, no. Life’s too short. If I want to climb into the Obama way-back machine, it’s too hear him dismiss bitter clingers, or tell a hall full of union hacks he wants single-payer health insurance, or try to come up with the word “inhaler”. If we’re going to do nothing against the threats of ISIS, Boko Haram, Vladimir Putin, and a dozen other threats (not one of which is global warming), I’m going to enjoy what remains of summer. And my life.

Comments (2)

IRS: Remember Those Lies We Told You About Lois Lerner’s Emails?

We lied:

Judicial Watch, a watchdog group which has been investigating the IRS scandal, has learned that Lois Lerner’s supposedly missing emails may still exist within a federal government back-up system.

After months of administration officials insisting that two years worth of Lerner’s emails were irretrievable following a computer crash, a Department of Justice attorney admitted to Judicial Watch Friday that the federal government backs up all their computer records in case of catastrophe.

IRS Commissioner John Koskinen testified just a few months ago that Lerner’s emails were lost, while the IRS claimed it had gone to “unprecedented efforts” to retrieve the emails.

The news of the “lost” emails was met with wide mockery and disbelief in the press, with many suspecting that some back-up of the records must exist.

Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch, told Fox News that the Department of Justice now claims it would be “too hard” to retrieve Lerner’s emails from the back-up system.

Fitton was irate over the administration’s deception: “Everything we’ve been hearing about scratched hard drives, missing e-mails of Lois Lerner, other IRS officials, other officials in the Obama administration–it’s all been a pack of malarkey.”

“There’s no such thing as Lois Lerner’s missing e-mails,” said Fitton. “It’s all been a big lie. They’ve been lying to the courts, to the American people and to Congress. It is really outrageous.”

It ain’t the crime, but the cover-up. This is Watergate forty years on. If it’s too much to ask for Woodward and Bernstein, can we at least have Holmes (Katie) and Watson (Emma), Lucy and Ethel, or Potsie and Ralph investigate? Memo to media: this kind of crime is precisely why you exist. Do your job.

Comments

Comforting the Comfortable

Many conservatives have come to realize that to win the contest of ideas, you have to compete on the field of culture. It does one no good to be right (as in correct) when Hollywood, academia, the media are all left (as in wrong).

They tell us so themselves:

At last, we know the reason why comedy writers don’t make fun of President Obama much.

It turns out the man is completely unmockable.

We learn this from Jim Downey, the longtime “Saturday Night Live” specialist in political japery. “If I had to describe Obama as a comedy project, I would say, ‘Degree of difficulty, 10 point 10,’” the writer says in the expanded new edition of the “SNL” oral history book, “Live from New York.”

“It’s like being a rock climber looking up at a thousand-foot-high face of solid obsidian, polished and oiled,” Downey says. “There’s not a single thing to grab onto — certainly not a flaw or hook that you can caricature. [Al] Gore had these ‘handles,’ so did Bush, and Sarah Palin, and even Hillary had them. But with Obama, it was the phenomenon — less about him and more about the effect he had on other people and the way he changed their behavior. So that’s the way I wrote him.”

Got that? The charter Choom Ganger, confessed eater of dog and snorter of coke. The doofus who thinks the language spoken by Austrians is “Austrian,” that you pronounce the p in “corpsman” and that ATMs are the reason why job growth is sluggish. The egomaniac who gave the queen of England an iPod loaded with his own speeches and said he was better at everything than the people who work for him. The empty suit with so little real-world knowledge that he referred to his brief stint working for an ordinary profit-seeking company as time “behind enemy lines.” The phony who tells everyone he’s from Chicago, though he didn’t live there until his 20s, and lets you know that he’s talking to people he believes to be stupid by droppin’ his g’s. The world-saving Kal-El from a distant solar system who told us he’d heal the planet and cause the oceans to stop rising. The guy who shared a middle name with one of the most hated dictators on earth.

Nope, nothing there to mock. No way to get a grip on this polished, oiled obsidian. So comedy writers didn’t and mostly still don’t.

In a new book, “Politics Is a Joke!” three academics tabulated 100,000 jokes told by late-night comics over the last 20 years. They found that in 2008 only 6% of the jokes were about Obama (Palin attracted nearly as many jokes in four months as a public figure as he did all year). And those jokes had a tendency to be about as barbed as cotton candy. Example cited by Tevi Troy in The Wall Street Journal: Jon Stewart said Obama visited Bethlehem so he could see “the manger where he was born.”

In every presidential campaign since 1992, the researchers found, comedians aimed more jokes at Republicans than they did at Democrats. Overall, twice as many barbs flew at the GOP.

“Our job is, whoever is in power, we’re opposed,” “SNL” chief Lorne Michaels told The New York Times in 2008.

And 2008 is when that policy ended.

Anyone who cares deeply about a story—say, the way we do about Israel—sees the distortions in the media and the culture at large. We often despair. Obama, global warming, big government, race—we see (and share with you) report after report, story after story highlighting the misconceptions and hypocrisies in the coverage in the media and culture, yet we feel like we get nowhere.

To many young Americans, Jon Stewart is their John Chancellor, and Tina Fey is their Sarah Palin.

Speaking of whom, who says Obama isn’t comedy gold?

Comments

St. Louis, Meet Salt Lake

Cop shoots unarmed teen. Teen dies. Dog bites man:

A day after Salt Lake City police shot and killed a man whose family claim he was unarmed, questions about the shooting remain unanswered.

South Salt Lake police are investigating the shooting because it occurred within the city, but near the border with Salt Lake City. Officers have not yet said whether they recovered a weapon at the scene.

“They’re here to protect and serve. More like shoot and kill,” said Jerrail Taylor, Dillon Taylor’s older brother. “Anybody in this house or anybody on the streets, if we kill someone, we’re doing 25 years to life in prison. I’d like this cop to lose his job and do the same amount of time like a regular human being.”

Dillon Taylor, 20, who is from Salt Lake, was exiting 7-Eleven with his brother and cousin, Adam Thayne, around 7 p.m. on Monday, when Salt Lake City police arrived, responding to a report of a man waving a gun in the area.

The officers ordered the men to the ground. Two of them complied, but Dillon, who police say matched the suspect’s description, did not go down.

“It came in as a 911 call that there was a man with a gun,” said South Salt Lake Police Sgt. Darrin Sweeten. “He was verbally challenged and ultimately was shot.”

This account left out one small detail:

Untitled

The chief also addressed speculation about the ethnicity of the officer who shot Taylor, saying the officer is not white. Taylor’s brother, Jerrail Taylor, raised issues last week about racial profiling. He said his brother was Hispanic.

I agree that the ethnicity of the policeman is irrelevant. In Salt Lake as it is in St. Louis.

The story also leaves out any mention of riots, looting, Molotov cocktails, “provocateurs”, etc. in Salt Lake. What terrible reporting.

Comments

Silver Lining Watch

Good news out of Ferguson, MO!

MSNBC anchors Chris Hayes and Craig Melvin were pelted with rocks during the network’s live coverage of the ongoing unrest in Ferguson, Missouri.

“The scene here, just honestly 15 minutes ago, was calm, but it is the case now here and has been the last eight nights that as soon that things can go from just quiet and calm to incredibly tense and contested. And as you can tell people are angry,” Hayes observed

Gosh, Chris, how do you suppose that happened?

HOWARD KURTZ: Some are doing a good job. Some grandstanding in my view. I was surprised to CNN’s Jake Tapper say the police shouldn’t be out there in riot gear because there was no threat. And part of the polarization and this does get into a racially divisive case that reminds us all too much of the Trayvon tragedy. You have MSNBC kind of acting as the Michael Brown Defense Network led by Al Sharpton who speaks with families, speaks at rallies, comments on his show.

Anything else?

TRYMAINE LEE, MSNBC: I think it’s one thing to say there is no racial undertone here but then in practice, it’s almost like an apartheid state. When you look at the school board not a single African-American on the school board yet the community is 70% African-American. You have three black police officers on a force of 53. You talk about ladders of opportunity, young people feel there are none. The schools, many are failing. The state is embroiled in controversy about a transfer program. And so while he says it, he’s probably listening to his constituents.

There is a great article in the New Republic recently where they polled white folks in St. Louis and how people talk about what’s happening in the community. It’s on the people themselves for destroying their community and all the coded language. So there are clear issues here. I don’t know if he’s trying to do a P.R. move or what, clearly black folks in this community feel the long and terrible history here.

Another can of gasoline to throw on the fire?

On MSNBC this afternoon, network contributor Michael Eric Dyson said President Obama’s refusal to wade into the Ferguson situation is a “low point” for his presidency. Dyson said Obama “failed” black people and the nation for trying to come up with an excuse to “not speak about race.”

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON: I think he has far more latitude than he’s exercised so far. He’s got the bully pulpit. Be a bully in the pulpit but don’t bully black people. Yesterday was a low moment in the Obama presidency because he distracted attention away from the facts of the case. A white police officer armed to the teeth with a gun has killed an unarmed black youth. The president turned this into a referendum, if you will, on internal machinations of black criminality and the politics of black respectability as opposed to the facts at hand. He was a poor teacher yesterday and he’s such a brilliant and insightful man, but he failed us not only as black people but he failed the nation.

He failed to deal with the particular instances not only of Michael Brown — he doesn’t have to deal with Michael Brown. The president said, I don’t want to put my thumb on it too much to weigh the scales of justice. Don’t even talk about Michael Brown. Talk about what led to Michael Brown. Tell us as a nation what happens when festering rage in a community then begins to ignite and then begins to consume not only that community but the people around the nation who are empathetic. So I think the president has a lot more latitude. Does he have opposition? Yes. But when he opens his mouth on Iraq, he’s opposed. When he opens his mouth on the environment, he’s opposed. When he opens hi mouth on gay marriage, he’s opposed. He’s oppose every step. Don’t use this as an excuse to not speak about race.

If anyone actually watched the poxy station I’d throw rocks at MSNBC, too, the patronizing bastards. This is about as close to shouting fire in a crowded theater as a “news” station can get.

PS: This can’t help.

Funeral arrangements have been set for Michael Brown, the 18-year-old man killed by police in Ferguson last weekend.

According to his attorney, Benjamin Crump, the funeral has been set for Monday, August 25, 2014 at Friendly Temple Missionary Baptist Church at 10 a.m.

Rev. Al Sharpton will deliver the eulogy and Rev. Michael Jones will officiate.

Sharpton never knew and never even heard of Michael Brown until his death. Sharpton may prove one wrong, but one would be forgiven for thinking that inviting an MSNBC host and notorious race hustler (Tawana Brawley, Freddie’s Fashion Mart, etc.) to eulogize in this incendiary situation is a political stunt.

Comments

All the News That’s Fit to Suppress

The UK Guardian opinion section quotes an old editor: “Comment is free, but facts are sacred.”

Funny, that:

The British newspaper The Guardian rejected an advertorial piece penned by famed Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz, JNS.org has learned. In the ad, Dershowitz refutes statements by many media outlets that all of the Gaza Strip is densely populated, a claim that has been used to justify the use of human shields by Hamas in the terrorist group’s recent conflict with Israel.

“The British media is divided,” Dershowitz said in an interview. “But The Guardian, which holds itself out to be a purveyor of diverse truth, clearly reflects a bias against Israel on its editorial pages, as well as in its presentation of the news. Now that bias has spread to the advertising pages.”

Dershowitz told JNS.org that newspapers “have a right to decide which ads to accept and reject,” but questioned The Guardian’s decision not to run his advertorial.

“My column was factually sound and not a personal attack on anybody. It simply laid out the geographic facts of the Gaza Strip and its implications,” he said.

“Dershowitz was presenting a new point of view in this article,” Harry Wechsler of the Wechsler Family Foundation told JNS.org in an email.

“Hamas was not forced into shooting their rockets from pads located in urban areas, thereby leading to unavoidable civilian deaths,” wrote Wechsler. “They were not shooting from some of the densest population centers anywhere because they had no other choice. No—the choice was there. Though not large, Gaza had ample space that was not densely populated—farm land, empty spaces where rockets could have been stored and shot from. Furthermore, the U.N. could easily have developed temporary quarters in these same spaces for the sheltering of civilian refugees, far away from the sites of battle.”

“The Guardian rarely shows photographs of Hamas fighters firing from densely populated areas. They continue to perpetuate the myth that all of the Gaza is densely populated. They continue to perpetrate the myth that the vast majority of people killed in this was have been children and women, when the fact is the vast majority of people killed have been males of terrorist age,” Dershowitz said.

It is important for Americans and British readers to know that the worst kind of distortion is “distortion by omission, where the media refuses to print the truth or opposing points of view, and the rejection of this ad [by The Guardian] is a manifestation of that,” added Dershowitz.

Exactly. No one in Britain knows anything except what the media report. If the media report an Israeli massacre, that’s what they believe. If the truth is far different, well, that’s someone else’s job.

But I reject even Dershowitz’s point. So what if Hamass were forced by population density to fire from crowded areas? That’s still on them. Nobody’s making them shell, rocket, and mortar Israel continually over the the past nine years. That’s their choice. If Israel doesn’t have the right to put an end to that, even if protecting their citizens from terror might harm Gaza’s citizens, she is the only country I’ve ever heard of so constrained. Nonsense. Israel may kill as many Gazans as necessary to secure Israelis, no more, no fewer. Indeed, it must.

Comments

Heard On The BBC

Today on the BBC they did a heartfelt piece about the anguish of the average Gazan. It dripped with empathy, British-style, meaning they were warm and caring toward the Gazans and at the same time hostile and snotty toward Israel.

I thought about this: “Aggie, (I thought), how can you help the British media, and the British public, to feel empathy for the suffering of the Israelis? How to make them understand that in a nation of roughly 7 million people, 14,000 missiles have been launched from Gaza in total, and about 3,500 of them happened within the past couple of months? How can such loving people not feel for the poor Israelis, and how can I help?”

Well, I thought and I thought and I think I have the solution. It is pretty simple. You see, there are about 7.5 million Israelis, but 63,742,000 citizens of the UK. I want to divide the UK into Israel-sized populations. Hmmm. I have to divide 63,742,000 by 7.5 million. It comes up to 8.493333333333. Let’s agree on 8.5, ok? So that means that there are 8.5 regions of the UK, somehow divided into 7.5 million human beings each (except for the .5 which has only 3.75 million, give or take). Got it? Now draw the borders any which way, as long as each region has only 7.5 million people.

And start shelling them. Randomly and persistently, begin to fire missiles into the UK. Some will land in fields, some will shatter the stained glass in those beautiful cathedrals, some will hit cafes, and some will land in nursery schools or senior living facilities. This needs to go on for 9 years and it needs to be random. Perhaps someone can write a computer program to create the randomness of the targets? And naturally, the missiles themselves must be faulty enough that even if something is aimed at a park, it could as easily land in the 3rd floor living room of a nice apartment.

Talk doesn’t matter. Whoever runs the program can talk and talk and talk, as long as the shelling continues. It’s best if they promise to stop if demands are met, etc., but the shelling must continue. Oh, and it would be lovely if the population of Britain was blamed for their own misery and most especially if the UN passed dozens, oddles!, of resolutions blaming them.

In 9 years, we can see how the BBC responds. Our readers who either live in the UK or are familiar with it can write and let us know if this would work.

Best,

Aggie

Comments

Don’t Mention the War Deserter!

Self-censorship is the worst censorship:

While the U.S. Army weighs whether to bring charges against Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who was freed earlier this year after spending nearly five years as a Taliban captive in Afghanistan, six of his former platoon mates are shopping proposals for a book and movie that would render their own harsh verdicts.

A draft of their book proposal, a copy of which was obtained by Yahoo News, depicts Bergdahl as a “premeditated” deserter who “put all of our lives in danger” — and possibly aided the Taliban — when he disappeared from his observation post in eastern Afghanistan in the early morning hours of June 30, 2009.

“I’m not sure we can publish this book without the Right using it to their ends,” Sarah Durand, a senior editor at Atria Books, a division of Simon & Schuster, wrote in an email to one of the soldiers’ agents.

“[T]he Conservatives are all over Bergdahl and using it against Obama,” Durand wrote, “and my concern is that this book will have to become a kind of ‘Swift Boat Veterans for Truth'” — a reference to the group behind a controversial book that raised questions about John Kerry’s Vietnam War record in the midst of his 2004 presidential campaign.

Yeah, but the Swift Boaters were telling the truth.

“There was no way we were going to sit down and be quiet while Obama was calling him a war hero,” said Evan Buetow, Bergdahl’s former team leader, in an interview with Yahoo News. “We’re just trying to tell the truth. It’s not my fault this would make Obama look bad.”

“We didn’t politicize this,” added Cody Full, Bergdahl’s former roommate. “They brought his parents out at a White House Rose Garden ceremony and presented him as a hero. … Why wouldn’t you just have a quiet press release? Why do you have to have a big parade? You don’t do that for the parents who have kids who have died in Afghanistan.”

This is a smoking gun, but the arsenal of left-wing bias in the news, academia, and across the culture is much greater than this. The so-called low information crowd includes New York Times readers, NPR listeners, and the like. In fact, they are the low information crowd.

Comments (2)

« Previous Page« Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries »Next Page »