What's remarkable about Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Nobel Laureate Tom Schelling, Hassan Nasrallah is that they probably agree with Keyser Soze, the legendary fictional villain of The Usual Suspects on one subject. Part boogeyman and part urban legend, Soze was a near-metaphysical example of implacable retribution.
"Hezbollahs barbarism is legendary. Gen. Effe Eytam, an Israeli veteran of that first Lebanon war, tells of how--after Israel had helped bring "Doctors without Borders" into a village in the 1980s to treat children--local villagers lined up 50 kids the next day to show Eytam the price they pay for cooperating with the West. Each of the children had had their pinky finger cut off."
None of the weapons in the IDF arsenal could level this disparity in will. Alexander Solzhenitsyn, in a speech before the Harvard class of 1978 explained how weapons simply became "burdens" to those who lacked a belief worth fighting for.
Today even better weapons are there yet the American force in Iraq is regarded as having become totally impotent, not because it has become militarily weaker; through fixed airbases, experience, new weapons it has become immeasurably stronger than it was in 2003. But it's impotence is due entirely to the perception that it's will has drained away -- that it cannot use its power. That leaves American power weaker than had it never been used. As Tom Schelling taught commitments that are repudiated -- such as by those politicians who now say they were against OIF even before they voted for it -- destroy not only the current commitments but the possibility of future commitments. The cost of escaping one commitment is the discrediting of other commitments that one would still like to be credited.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn asked his audience whether man could live without faith and received no answer. Tom Schelling answered, without hearing the question, that man cannot not survive without at least the counterfeit of faith: something called commitment. In game theoretic at least. And as for Keyser Soze, of whom, "to hear Kobayashi tell it, anybody could have worked for", faith and fear run together until finally God is indistinguishable from the Devil. "Well, I believe in God -- and the only thing that scares me is Keyser Soze."
Deterrence was not simply a matter of possessing advanced weapons. That was only half the equation. The other half was to establish that you were absolutely ready to use those weapons to your purpose. And given a choice between superiority in weapons and ascendance in will, weapons always came in second.
No weapons, no matter how powerful, can help the West until it overcomes its loss of willpower. In a state of psychological weakness, weapons become a burden for the capitulating side. To defend oneself, one must also be ready to die; there is little such readiness in a society raised in the cult of material well-being. Nothing is left, then, but concessions, attempts to gain time and betrayal.
The matchless power of inherited Cold War weapons was more than overcome by withering of the very mental attitudes which made them effective. Mark Steyn argued that as a result the West's power shrank in direct proportion to the effectiveness of weaponry because the laws of political correctness always diminished the will to use them faster than their increase in destructiveness. "We live in an age of inversely proportional deterrence: The more militarily powerful a civilized nation is, the less its enemies have to fear the full force of that power ever being unleashed. They know America and other Western powers fight under the most stringent self-imposed etiquette. Overwhelming force is one thing; overwhelming force behaving underwhelmingly as a matter of policy is quite another. ... The U.S. military is the best-equipped and best-trained in the world. But it's not enough, it never has been, and it never will be."
Time to drop the "stringent self-imposed etiquette."
As I've mentioned before. How is it that the non-Muslim world is suddenly responsible for eliminating a tiny but pathologically violent portion of a putative religion? All we are obliged to do is rid this world of any and all who are even remotely connected with the hideous problem of terrorism. No daintiness or extrordinary discrimination is required as we perform this task. If we indulge in such delicacy, it should only be because there has been a concerted and legitimate effort upon the part of Islam to rid itself of jihadist factions.
To date, Islam has done less than nothing to substantially combat terrorism. If Islam continues to disregard its obligation to purge itself of those who would commit endless atrocities, then they must not be too surprised if the baby is thrown out with the bathwater. Highly radioactive bathwater, most likely.
#2
I have said before that the Muslims will not stop until they feel beaten. The insurgency and now sectarian strife might have taken a different trajectory if we had gone Roman on some part of the Sunni Triangle.
As long as the (probably mythological) moderate Muslims refuse to clean their own house, the 10% that commit atrocities make the rest irrelevant. Tired of all the excuses. The West will not be able to sort them out. They must be forced to do it themselves.
"a million or more Sunnis of Pakistani background, who comprise the main element among British Asian Muslims, also include the largest contingent of radical Muslims in Europe. Their jihadist sympathies embody an imported ideology, organised through mosques and other religious institutions" -- gives names & organizations at fault. Article by Stephen Schwartz, a Muslim.
#1
I've pointed out before that Pakistani Islam is just a branch of Indian Islam and is unique.
It is the only islamic culture that developed in an environment where the majority population was not muslim.
It thus developed an elaborate set of rules and customs for dealing with the unclean kaffirs a muslim is forced to live amongst.
It has a culture of separation.. separate civil laws for muslims in India, muslim only areas in villages, towns, cities and carried to the extreme in the "two nation theory" - the idea that islam is in danger and cannot coexist in a democartic state with other faiths. Muslims are a separate nation and must live in their own state - partition.
It suffered a traumatic loss of political power and has sought to restore muslim rule over the subcontinent.
Separation is a method to achieve political power.
This culture of separation is the template which other muslim communities living in europe but from other regions of the world, are adopting.
Thus it is not a surprise that Britain, home to muslim migrants from Pakistan, should be vulnerable to the jihadi threat.
Posted by: john ||
08/19/2006 14:57 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I grew up in Soddiland from 1958 to 1970 and it was very racially stratified. For example:
The Americans and English were Senior Staff (Engineers, etc),
The Palestinians were at the top of the muslims (due to their excellent schooling from the English),
The Soddis were oilfield labor,
The Indians were housboys, and at the bottom of the list,
The Pakis were the gardeners.
Pakis are extreme muzzies, but the arabs look down on them as they are NOT arabs.
It has always been a question of timing, and it has been expected. The experts predicted it would be the next step in Pyongyangs playbook. In a North Korean foreign ministry statement on July 16, it responded to the United Nations Security Councils resolution by declaring it would use "all means and methods" to strengthen its "war deterrent," reconfirming its intention to take what it has previously called "stronger physical action" if the U.S. and others attempt to pressure it over its missile tests.
A similar warning of what could come happened on July 5, local time, when the missile test took place. In its statement on June 1, Pyongyangs foreign ministry said that it would take "unavoidable, extremely strong measures" if the U.S. intensifies what the North calls hostility and pressure. In that sense, the current activity involving vehicles and large reels of cable at Punggye-ri, Kilchu-gun, North Hamgyong Province, when compared to the first signs Pyongyang would attempt a missile launch, make it seem like the North might eventually follow through with a nuclear test.
Movement in the mountainous area of Kilchu-gun that could be related to a nuclear test is nothing new. In April 2003, U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher, referring to activity there, said that moves towards a nuclear test are a "serious concern for the international community." It was the first time the U.S. officially suggested the possibility of North Korean nuclear test. Movement suspected of being potentially related to a nuclear test have been spotted in the Kilchu area sporadically since the summer of 2004. According to U.S. intelligence officials, the North was at one point making a deliberate effort to engage in "all activities" related to a test, including the building of an observation platform and the filling in of the entrance to a tunnel. That activity stopped in June 2005, perhaps because of the U.S.-South Korea summit on June 10, the meeting between Kim Jong-il and Chung Dong-young on June 17, and the resumption of the six-party talks.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Steve ||
08/19/2006 14:15 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Think we could put a cruise missile into the opening of that underground test site?
Well, well. Looks like the recent ruling that makes the receivers of classified intel legally prosecutable has hit home...
If ever government whistle-blowers needed protection from official retaliation it is now, in the secrecy-obsessed Bush administration. Federal employees daring to disclose fraud and abuse in their bureaucracies have been under virtual siege, isolated as pariahs and shipped off under gag orders to lesser jobs in far-off places.
Appeals to court review under the 17-year-old Whistle-Blower Protection Act have proved fruitless, with the Supreme Court ruling in May that workers have no right to First Amendment protection when they warn lawmakers and taxpayers of government waste and folly. The ruling has thrown the issue back into the lap of Congress. Fortunately, there is enough anger emerging on both sides of the aisle to raise hopes for remedial legislation.
#1
Hmmm...isn't it a basic principle in most local American laws, that possession of stolen property is a crime? And particularly in a case where one knows that it is indeed received not by legal means?
The seventh angel poured out his bowl into the air;
And a loud voice came forth out of the temple of Heaven,
From the throne, saying, "It is done!"
--Revelation 16:17
Binary liquid explosives are a sexy staple of Hollywood thrillers. It would be tedious to enumerate the movie terrorists who've employed relatively harmless liquids that, when mixed, immediately rain destruction upon an innocent populace, like the seven angels of God's wrath pouring out their bowls full of pestilence and pain.
The funny thing about these movies is, we never learn just which two chemicals can be handled safely when separate, yet instantly blow us all to kingdom come when combined. Nevertheless, we maintain a great eagerness to believe in these substances, chiefly because action movies wouldn't be as much fun if we didn't.
Now we have news of the recent, supposedly real-world, terrorist plot to destroy commercial airplanes by smuggling onboard the benign precursors to a deadly explosive, and mixing up a batch of liquid death in the lavatories. So, The Register has got to ask, were these guys for real, or have they, and the counterterrorist officials supposedly protecting us, been watching too many action movies?
We're told that the suspects were planning to use TATP, or triacetone triperoxide, a high explosive that supposedly can be made from common household chemicals unlikely to be caught by airport screeners. A little hair dye, drain cleaner, and paint thinner - all easily concealed in drinks bottles - and the forces of evil have effectively smuggled a deadly bomb onboard your plane.
#5
Exactly, TR. Does anyone care to argue Mr. greene's chemistry?
Posted by: Vegas Matt ||
08/19/2006 17:09 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Well as far as hydrgen peroxide goes you can get "100 point" H2O2 from beauty supply companies This is about 20% H2O2 which is about the same strenght as what I get for greenhouse use. So strongher solutions are around. I talk to the supplier about 50% H2O2 way before 9-11 and he said that BATF was REAL interested in who was buying this stuff. You know 50% might be more available in Europe than here. Just like I can buy all the ammonium nitrate prills I want but in Europe you get it as a 50% solution.
I think you might be able to make TATP with 20% peroxide but a little voice that has become louder as I grow older is saying you really don't want to try this.
Posted by: bruce ||
08/19/2006 18:19 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Having lost a colleague on PanAm 103, I'm well aware of what the investigators report revealed.
#8
I'm sorry to hear you lost a colleague that day, Besoeker.
As some of you know, our daughter was a few blocks from the Twin Towers on 9/11 and friends of ours were in the wing of the Pentagon that was hit.
I will not forget and I will not forgive until all of murderous cult that killed innocent people that day are utterly unable to threaten or hurt my loved ones again.
#9
Thanks lotp. Just about everybody in the Army knew someone in the Pentagon and some knew many. I had been on the E-Ring and visited offices very near the impact only two weeks prior to the event. I hope folks never forget these terrible, senseless murders.
I'm thinking that means dead. And I assume you also mean those that follow in their footsteps and take up the same jihadi course. Dead. Waay dead. Lots and lots of deaders will be required to make it so.
#11
To the best of my knowledge there has been a great deal of research done on binary explosives, specifically for the purpose of use in tank main guns.
The theory is sound though the application appears to be somewhat less than optimal.
#12
Dead or contained. (I'm talking about the active jihadis.)
Others here at the Burg are working on the 'dead'. My own professional work has to do with the 'contained', although I contribute a bit to those who are working on the 'dead'.
The article does a number on the idea of using TATP, but was that exactly what the jihadis were trying to use?
Even a half-assed explosion has value. Terrorism is about media and theater. The mere fact of a dozen simultaneous attacks and resulting media coverage is a sufficient goal.
Remember that Japanese cult and their home-brew sarin attack on a subway? Less than a dozen killed and a thousand or so injured, IIRC, but nothing like the toll from a 'proper' nerve weapon. Still, I would not call it unsuccessful.
The article is from The Register, a site known more for snarky comment on the IT industry than in-depth analysis of the war on terror. Just because the jihadis are inept does not mean they are not dangerous.
#14
Who the f&ck cares whether the terrorists' particular devil's brew was going to work or not? In this age of weapons of mass destruction ability no longer matters. Intent must now become the yardstick by which the wish to harm is measured. Relatively innocuous individuals can end up contributing vital surveillance or transportation for an act that goes well beyond their actual ability to harm. If those who consider atrocities to be an appropriate response to political situations, then their intent must be proper evidence to convict them.
These maggots sought to plunge thousands of people to their deaths in mid-flight. This should be sufficient cause for their lifetime imprisonment.
And only the complicit MSM is toolish enough to buy in.
What makes two-dozen British Muslims want to blow up thousands of innocent passengers on jumbo jets? Why does al Qaeda plan hourly to kill civilians? And why does oil-rich Iran wish to "wipe out" Israel? In short, it's the old blame game, one that over the last century has taken multiple forms.
Once, a tired whine of Islamists was that European colonialists and American oilmen rigged global commerce to "rob" the Middle East of its natural wealth. But they were pretty quiet when the price of crude oil jumped from around an expensive $25 a barrel to an exorbitant $75.
Recently, oil exporters of the Middle East have taken in around an extra $500 billion each year in windfall profits beyond the old lucrative income. It is one of the largest, most sudden -- and least remarked upon -- transfers of capital in history.
Another old excuse for Islamist anger was the claim the West had favored autocrats -- the shah, the House of Saud, the Kuwaiti royal family -- in a cynical desire for cheap gas and to prop up strong anti-communist allies.
Some of that complaint was certainly accurate. But since September 11, 2001, America has ensured democracy in Afghanistan, spent billions and more than 2,600 lives fostering freedom in Iraq, pressured Syria to leave Lebanon, and lectured long-time allies in Egypt and the Gulf to reform. For all this, we are now considered crude interventionists, even when our efforts may well pave the way for radical Muslims to gain legitimacy through plebiscites.
Islamists have and continue today to gripe about Western infidels encroaching on Muslim lands. Osama bin Laden attacked because of American troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, or so he said. Hamas and Hezbollah resorted to terror to free Gaza, Lebanon and the West Bank, or so they said.
Yet, nothing much has changed since the United States pulled its combat troops out of Saudi Arabia, or after the Israelis departed Gaza and Lebanon, and announced planned withdrawals from parts of the West Bank. Meanwhile, the elected Iraqi government wants American soldiers to stay longer (while the latest polls suggest the American public doesn't agree).
Then there is moaning that the West treats its Muslim immigrants unfairly, despite evidence to the contrary. After all, Muslims build mosques and madrassas all over Europe and the United States; yet Christians cannot worship in Saudi Arabia or have missionaries in Iran. Western residents or immigrants in most Arab nations would not dare demonstrate on behalf of Israel. But in Michigan last week, largely Arab-American crowds chanted "Hezbollah" -- despite that terrorist organization's long history of murdering Americans.
Another Islamist grumble is that the West supports only Israel. Again, that's hardly true. The Europeans gave plenty of aid to the Palestine Liberation Organization and Hamas, and their hostility to Israel is well-established. The United States make no bones about aiding Israel, but it also has given tremendous amounts of money to the Palestinians, Egypt ($50 billion so far) and Jordan. And without the United States, Kuwait would be the 19th province of Iraq, the Taliban would rule Afghanistan, Saddam and his sons would still slaughter Kurds and there might not be any Muslims left at all in Kosovo or Bosnia.
The one thing, however, that the United States cannot do to please Islamists is change its liberal character and traditions of Western tolerance. And isn't that the real story behind all these perceived grievances and phantom hurts: the intrusive dynamism of freewheeling Western, and particularly American, culture?
Both its low form of girly magazines and punk rock as well as its impressive literature, art, commerce and technology now saturate the world. And why not? American radical individualism appeals to the innate human desire for freedom and unbridled expression. Westernization subverts most hierarchs, especially in the reactionary world of Islamic fundamentalism, where the mullah, family patriarch or state autocrat can't keep a lid on it. Instant communications have also brought to a socially insecure Middle East firsthand views of how much wealthier, freer and more tolerant the outside world is when democratic and transparent.
But instead of providing a blueprint for reform, these revelations only incite envy and anger from millions who are advised that parity with the West is found instead by retreating further into seventh-century religious purity.
So never mind the trillions in petrodollars, billions in aid and concessions. Unless we change our very character, or the Middle East achieves success and confidence through Western-style democracy and economic reform, expect more tired scapegoating and violence from radical discontents, from Lebanon to London -- and well beyond.
#1
Recently, oil exporters of the Middle East have taken in around an extra $500 billion each year in windfall profits beyond the old lucrative income. It is one of the largest, most sudden -- and least remarked upon -- transfers of capital in history.
The last time this happened was in the late 1970s and we screwed OPEC and ourselves by inflating our currency. Could this happen again?
Posted by: regular joe ||
08/19/2006 8:42 Comments ||
Top||
#2
But in Michigan last week, largely Arab-American crowds chanted "Hezbollah" -- despite that terrorist organization's long history of murdering Americans.
Well that certainly wasn't pasted across the news was it?
#3
What I'd like to see is a scheme by the Treasury to suddenly replace all the outstanding currency with an entirely different design of bill, inform the American Public that on a certain week all should bring in their old currency for exchange with the new.
No cost, no limit, no I.D. required,one-to-one exchange, after that week, the old stuff is toilet paper.(This idea comes from one of the old "Mission Impossible" scripts where they screwed a Thief into believing that such a currency exchange was taking place, got his loot and left him with worthless "Monopoly Money)
Note the only folks who get this exchange are American Citizens.
Screws Kimmie and his Superbills, all the Illegals and anyone too fearfull of a trap to come in, such as bank embezelers, CEO"s who have huge cash eserves hidden, etc.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
08/19/2006 10:09 Comments ||
Top||
#4
The last time this happened was in the late 1970s and we screwed OPEC and ourselves by inflating our currency. Could this happen again?
Technically. However, it would be suicide because it would start a major collapse of the world economy which would deflate oil prices way back down. We couldn't buy Euro or Chinese products, which would cut their flow of major currency and would mean they couldn't afford oil at the prices. Most of the oil producers economies are dependent upon that flow, very few have reserves that can last very long, at least long enough to await the decade(s) long rebuilding of the modern economy. Usually resulting in major unrest and instability within their own borders. We'd be hurt. They'd be destroyed.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
08/19/2006 14:10 Comments ||
Top||
#6
We'd be more than hurt, I fear. Forget oil -- many key commodities like tungsten (for which China is by far the main supplier for the last decade or more) are not found here in the States or are here in only very limited quantities.
Better IMO to bypass oil with new technologies and let the oil producers sink into economic irrelevance.
By David D. Perlmutter The Israeli-Hezbollah war has left many dead bodies, ruined towns, and wobbling politicians in its wake, but the media historian of the future may also count as one more victim the profession of photojournalism. In twenty years of researching and teaching about the art and trade and doing photo-documentary work, I have never witnessed or heard of such a wave of attacks on the people who take news pictures and on the basic premise that nonfiction news photo- and videography is possible. I'm not sure, however, if the craft I love is being murdered, committing suicide, or both.
Among the words you're looking for: "hacks," "propagandists," and "poltroons."
Perhaps it would be more reassuring if the enemy at the gates was a familiar onepoliticians, or maybe radio talk show hosts. But the photojournalist standing on the crumbling ramparts of her once proud citadel now sees the vandal army charging for the sack led by zombietime, The Jawa Report, Powerline, Little Green Footballs, confederateyankee, and many others.
Noticing perfidy makes them vandals?
In each case, these bloggers have engaged in the kind of probing, contextual, fact-based (if occasionally speculative) media criticism I have always asked of my students. And the results have been devastating: news photos and video shown to be miscaptioned, radically altered, or staged (and worse, re-staged) for the camera. Surely green helmet guy, double smoke, the missiles that were actually flares, the wedding mannequin from nowhere, the magical burning Koran, the little girl who actually fell off a swing and keep filming! will now enter the pantheon of shame of photojournalism.
But only after they were rooted out and identified by people who weren't willing to uncritically accept propaganda and who were expecting propaganda from the enemy.
A few photo-illusions are probably due to the lust for the most sensational or striking-looking imagethat is, more aesthetic bias than political prejudice. Also, many photographers know that war victims are money shots and some will break the rules of the profession to cash in. But true as well is that local stringers and visiting anchors alike seem to have succumbed either to lens-enabled Stockholm syndrome or accepted being the uncredited Hezbollah staff photographer so as to be able to file stories and images in militia-controlled areas.
I'll take "being the Hezbollah staff photographer" for $50, Johnny...
It does not help that certain news organizations have acted like government officials or corporate officers trying to squash a scandal. The visual historian in me revolts when an ABC producer informs me that Reuters deleted all 920 images by the stringer who produced the Beirut double smoke image and is less than willing to talk about it. Can you say 18-minute gap, anyone?
I don't think it's coincidence that the same people who smoked out Dan Rather are the ones who smoked out Reuters.
There is one great irony here. From a historical perspective, this is the golden age of photojournalistic ethics. In previous eras wild retouching, rearranging, cutting of images and even staging and restaging of events for the camera were commonly accepted in the trade. As someone who has written a history of images of war, I can testify there is more honesty in war photography today than ever in the past in any medium or any war--but there is, of course, much more scrutiny as well.
It was understandable for Matthew Brady. It was even understandable in the days of hand-held light meters remember them? Today's cameras and digital technology lead to an entirely different expectations. Even in the Brady days, though, there were editors, and in later times there were photo editors. Presumably a photo editor has seen a lot of pictures and is able to pick out a clumsy Photoshop job, the appearance of the same guy with a half dozen casualties, equally distraught every time, or the appearance of the same victim in muliple contexts. It's maybe understandable that a journalism major knows little enough about military operations to accept flares as missiles, though I have my own opinions about using people who're ignorant on a subject to present it. The automotive press doesn't extol the virtues of big green cars over little red ones, and people reporting on agriculture don't refer to horsies and moo-moos. And then there's the matter of basic common sense...
The main point is that we are now at a social, political and technological crossroads for mediaamateur, industrial, and all points and persons in between. First, we live in Photoshop-CGI culture. People are accustomed to watching the amazing special effects of modern movies, where it seems any scene that can be imagined can be pixilated into appearing photorealistic. On our desktop, many of us are photoshopping our lives, manipulating family photos with ease.
So if you're aware of it, why don't you look for it?
In addition, in a digital-Internet-satellite age, any image on the Web can be altered by anyone into any new image and there is no original, as in a negative, to prove which was first. The icons are sacred no longer. Finally, there are the bloggers: the visual or word journalist is not only overseen by a familiar hierarchy of editors or producers but by many independents who will scan, query, trade observations, and blast what they think is an error or manipulation to the entire world.
With exemplary results, we might add...
News picture-making media organizations have two paths of possible response to this unnerving new situation. First, they can stonewall, deny, delete, dismiss, counter-slur, or ignore the problem. To some extent, this is what is happening now and, ethical consideration aside, such a strategy is the practical equivalent of taking extra photos of the deck chairs on the Titanic.
It's no fun being attacked. It's even less fun being caught out in what are really baldfaced lies. There's no room to maneuver, no way to save face.
The second, much more painful option, is to implement your ideals, the ones we still teach in journalism school.
I've never been to journalism school, but from what I hear that might be the problem that they are being implemented.
Admit mistakes right away. Correct them with as much fanfare and surface area as you devoted to the original image. Create task forces and investigating panels. Dont delete archives but publish them along with detailed descriptions of what went wrong. Attend to your critics and diversify the sources of imagery, or better yet be brave enough to refuse to show any images of scenes in which you are being told what to show. I would even love to see special inserts or mini-documentaries on how to spot photo bias or photo fakeryin other words, be as transparent, unarrogant, and responsive as you expect those you cover to be.
Sounds like Charles Johnson could pick up some fairly large bucks in this area...
The stakes are high. Democracy is based on the premise that it is acceptable for people to believe that some politicians or news media are lying to them; democracy collapses when the public believes that everybody in government and the press is lying to them. And what of future victims of war? Will the public deny them their sorrows because we will dismiss all smoking rubble and dead children as mere digital propaganda? Photojournalism must live, but not if its practitioners and owners are determined to jump into the abyss.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/19/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
had some fun with photos, Fred? :-)
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/19/2006 9:39 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Democracy is based on the premise that it is acceptable for people to believe that some politicians or news media are lying to them; democracy collapses when the public believes that everybody in government and the press is lying to them.
Well not quite. Before the bloated self important groups of both politicians and media people [particularly those who ran real hand operated printing presses] tried to sale themselves as something other than just partisan hacks, most citizen took it all with a grain of salt that they were sorta 'clowns'. It was entertainment before television, movies, etc.
Peter Venkman: "You know, I'm a voter. Aren't you supposed to lie to me and kiss my butt?" Ghostbusters II
Democracy suffers because power tends to gravitate towards institutions which are not directly subject to the consent of the governed and those institutions are rendered immune from the consequences of their destructive behaviors.
#3
Lets remember folks, that when an drug manufacturer, a tire manufacturer, an investment firm engages in behaviors which misrepresent their product or services, they are subject to criminal and civil penalties. Its is not an issue of Free Speech or Press. It is an issue of commerce which Constitutionally the government and the courts have the ability to act. Were bombarded by miles of print and days of coverage by the very same MSM when any other industry fails through negligence or outright fraud in delivering a product. MSM products meant for local consumption are a states problem. However, any product intended for interstate consumption falls under federal jurisdiction. Its time for MSM to be held to the same standards they have demanded of so many others. Expect no more chill to a free press anymore than a chill in any other business or industry that has weathered the process. However, youll hear them scream bloody murder when they are treated as any other institution. Can we read - Elitist. However, real reformers would welcome a measure to bring some sort of respectability, no matter how minor, back into their environment.
#4
Yeah, this Perlmutter character does have a knack for making the kind of cosmic / profound / self-important statements that seem endemic to the news-media. However, it's fair to note that he 1) recognizes that there's a problem, 2) admits that a bunch of people he doesn't like were the ones who were correct in this case, 3) admits that the news organizations that he venerates had their heads up their butts, and 4) proposes a partial solution. That's a lot more than we usually get from the news-media.
THREE pillars of liberalism - moral relativity, the sexual "revolution" and the obsession with "rights" - are on a collision course with reality in Ohio's Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court. In a recent pre-trail motion, Phillip Distasio - accused of sexually assaulting nine boys with physical or mental disabilities - claimed that having sex with children "is a sacred ritual protected by civil-rights laws."
"I've been a pedophile for 20 years. The only reason I'm charged with rape is that no one believes a child can consent to sex. The role of my ministry [Distasio claims he is the leader of a church] is to get these cases out of the courtrooms," said Distasio. Shocking? Certainly not - if one takes the aforementioned pillars to their "logical" conclusions: Right and wrong are relative, sexual taboos are anachronistic and individual rights are paramount.
This is actually a non-story, at least given a semirational world not a given anymore, thanks to the "liberalism" the author references. You can claim you're a religion all you want, but statutory rape laws still apply, the assumption being that a child under the age of consent is incapable of agreeing to sex, an adult act. The age of consent may vary from place to place, but the principle is rooted in a thousand years of common law. Add in the fact that the children were autistic and any case he might think he has is even further out the window. He may as well claim a right to necrophilia or bestiality or to marry his sister.
Beastiality is now legal in some parts of Scandanavia. Cue SCOTUS reference to "international norms".
Posted by: Fred ||
08/19/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Onward with the sexual liberation of children! All hail our brave vanguard!
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
The Israeli-Hezbollah war has left many dead bodies, ruined towns, and wobbling politicians in its wake, but the media historian of the future may also count as one more victim the profession of photojournalism. In twenty years of researching and teaching about the art and trade and doing photo-documentary work, I have never witnessed or heard of such a wave of attacks on the people who take news pictures and on the basic premise that nonfiction news photo- and videography is possible. I'm not sure, however, if the craft I love is being murdered, committing suicide, or both.
In each case, these bloggers have engaged in the kind of probing, contextual, fact-based (if occasionally speculative) media criticism I have always asked of my students. And the results have been devastating: news photos and video shown to be miscaptioned, radically altered, or staged (and worse, re-staged) for the camera. Surely 
A few photo-illusions are probably due to the lust for the most sensational or striking-looking imagethat is, more aesthetic bias than political prejudice. Also, many photographers know that war victims are money shots and some will break the rules of the profession to cash in. But true as well is that local stringers and visiting anchors alike seem to have succumbed either to lens-enabled Stockholm syndrome or accepted being the uncredited Hezbollah staff photographer so as to be able to file stories and images in militia-controlled areas.
The main point is that we are now at a social, political and technological crossroads for mediaamateur, industrial, and all points and persons in between. First, we live in Photoshop-CGI culture. People are accustomed to watching the amazing special effects of modern movies, where it seems any scene that can be imagined can be pixilated into appearing photorealistic. On our desktop, many of us are photoshopping our lives, manipulating family photos with ease.
In addition, in a digital-Internet-satellite age, any image on the Web can be altered by anyone into any new image and there is no original, as in a negative, to prove which was first. The icons are sacred no longer. Finally, there are the bloggers: the visual or word journalist is not only overseen by a familiar hierarchy of editors or producers but by many independents who will scan, query, trade observations, and blast what they think is an error or manipulation to the entire world. 
The second, much more painful option, is to implement your ideals, the ones we still teach in journalism school. 
THREE pillars of liberalism - moral relativity, the sexual "revolution" and the obsession with "rights" - are on a collision course with reality in Ohio's Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court. In a recent pre-trail motion, 
