#2
nope - the movie's already out to TV critics and pundits on DVD for marketing/hype. If they altered it now, it would be noted and the resulting uproar would dwarf the actual fallout for Clinton and cronies. The koolaid drinkers won't believe the truth anyway....
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/04/2006 10:46 Comments ||
Top||
#3
It's going to be a real blow to the gut, also. Hard to believe ABC would run something so anti-Clinton/Donk so close to the election. Should be big numbers for this given that it won't air for a week. For all I know the BC thing may be a hype rumor. But it's worked.
Caesar was stabbed, in the end, by one of his closest and most loyal friends, Brutus. And George Bush was betrayed throughout the course of the entire Fitzgerald inquisition by his one time friend and close confidant, Colin Powell, who knew all along the involvement of Richard Armitage, and chose to keep quiet.
Loyalty runs between many extremes.
Loyalty motivates US Marines to leave cover, under enemy fire, to rescue wounded comrades, often at the cost of their own lives, and pull them to safety and their comrades.
Fidelity will send firefighters rushing back inside a burning building when they hear the shrill scream of a personal alarm locator from a fallen brother or sister.
And allegiance to a police partner's wishes will send you pell-melling it headlong to the nearest emergency room, while another cop cradles your wounded partner in the back seat-- because you promised you'd never wait for the ambulance and you'd head for the nearest trauma bay Code 3 -- you keep those promises you make because someday it might be you with a hole in your neck.
#3
I could be wrong, but I think this may be ridiculous. Suppose that Armitage had admitted his role. Would this have stopped the political damage to Bush? More likely, Armitage would have been labeled a Bush stooge, or as taking one for the team. Indeed, by keeping their mouths shut, the Bush Administration has been able to further tarnish the MSM as well as clear themselves on the matter.
#4
Colin Powell has always been a EEO hire -- his military tours of duty appear to have been little more than kerryesque whistle stops. He dons the mantle of honor, but the scope of his perfidity in this matter reveals he true character -- or lack of it.
Posted by: regular joe ||
09/04/2006 9:50 Comments ||
Top||
#5
You might be right, perfesser, but my take on it is that the Administration took a major hit, was crippled in congress (lost ability to enforce party discipline), distracted and damaged by 3 years of lying, deliberately corrosive attacks.
Powell was a political general who reached to JCS under Clinton IIRC. Indeed an EEO hire, both for his stars and when he was given a high paying position on AOL's board of directors after retiring. What a petty nasty and ultimately dishonorable thing he did in this affair. I hope he has enjoyed his revenge on Cheney and Rumsfled and Bush, because the dishonor will taint him for the rest of his life.
#8
It's an interesting point he brings up but I think it is way too early to make such a searing accusation against Colin Powell.
There are many questions left unanswered in this but the biggest one in my mind is why Fitzgerald chose to conduct a lengthy, expensive inquisition when he already knew the answer.
Is everyone really so sure that Fitzgerald was out to get the Bush Administration? Maybe what he was really looking for was the who, what, why, where, when and to the nefarious activities going on within our own CIA and the classified leaks to reporters. With what we know now, that is certainly a possibility.
What better way to get all members of the media, the CIA, the left and the Kos Kiddies to cooperate to this end than to use Karl Rove and Dick Cheney as irresistable bait?
What I also think is interesting is that the left is now suddenly saying that national security and Miss Valerie really weren't harmed. This is just much ado about nothing, ya see. No need to prosecute ol' Joe Wilson who was used in by the CIA in an orchestrated plot to unseat the president with smears and lies.
I hope the Fitzgerald really got the information he needed to find out what was going on in the CIA re: who helped Valerie Plame set up this trap for the president and who was leaking. Which agents, reporters, officials, and others were a part of this highly illegal game.
I wonder if we are going to find that the real target was never Rove or Cheney - but rather they were just the bait to get cooperation to find out who in the CIA who conducted what were, conducting treason.
I sure hope so and if so - ol Karl is truly a genius.
#10
There are many questions left unanswered in this but the biggest one in my mind is why Fitzgerald chose to conduct a lengthy, expensive inquisition when he already knew the answer.
I absolutely agree.
Is everyone really so sure that Fitzgerald was out to get the Bush Administration? Maybe what he was really looking for was the who, what, why, where, when and to the nefarious activities going on within our own CIA and the classified leaks to reporters. With what we know now, that is certainly a possibility.
Could he just investigate anything he wanted with out limit? Starr had to go back to the judge to get his mandate expanded to handle Clinton's perjury. Wouldn't Fitz also?
#11
I don't know. But perhaps this allowed them to get at the issue without needing to expand it or reveal what information they were really looking for. This story has always been so confusing to me.
#12
It doesn't matter what Fitzgerald was doing, what he was looking for, or where things were going. The main thing is that in the end, Colin Powell turned out to be just another dam$$$ politician who let his personal feelings get in the way of doing the job he was given. It's beginning to be more and more clear why he wasn't able to do much to "turn things around" at State - he didn't really want to. Protecting Richard Armitage and allowing a three-year investigation into nothing continue did great harm to the government of the United States. Powell certainly failed to follow his oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and bear true faith and allegiance to it". I think Bush found out about Armitage and Powell's lack of enthusiasm for following Bush's lead, and that's why he resigned. In my opinion, good riddance. It doesn't seem that Rice is doing all that much better of a job, either.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
09/04/2006 21:57 Comments ||
Top||
#13
"It doesn't seem that Rice is doing all that much better of a job, either."
(EDITOR's NOTE, 9/3/06: The transcript of the video is on Laura Mansfield's website.) The video tape issued by al Qaedas as-sahhab production, in which Ayman Zawahiri introduces Jihadist Adam Gahdan to the world as a senior speaker to the American people on behalf of the movement, should be taken seriously. Not necessarily at the level of detecting the next Terror attack but at the level of understanding this prelude to Future Jihad both in America and within the West. I wasnt surprised at all by the 45 minutes elaboration by convert Gahdan regarding all of the issues he raised. For Azzam al Amrikee is the clearest specimen of Jihadisms second generation within the US, in as much as the 7/7 videos revealed the type of future Jihadists for Great Britains second generation. However, when one would listen carefully to the taped video, youd find a treasure of knowledge and indicators for the current state of thinking of al Qaeda and its ideologues. In short it is a sample of what is on the mind of Salafi Jihadists for the United States and the West. Following are few of the issues I noted:
1) The hand behind the message
In short, Azzams videotaped message is indeed American. Experts have heard it in US and Canadian cities and internet is flowing with it. Whether Gadahn was reading from a prompter or not and I believe he was with great skills- I tend to believe that such a speech rather than being dismissed as mere propaganda- is a message coming to us from whats already inserted inside America, which leads me to the second point
2) Who is it destined to?
It is basically addressed to those who will carry a Jihad in America, possibly asserting Adam Gahdan as their leader. Also, this is a very intelligent move to pierce the linguistic shield of Americas media and reach US citizens directly, as a way to spread confusion at least among those who have a hazy understanding of the Jihadists.
3) The ideological platform
In short, the Azzam video reconfirms clearly, in an English language that academic translators wont be able to distort, that al Qaedas movement worldwide and in the United States is seeking total annihilation or conversion of the enemy: American and other democracies.
4) Argumentation tactics:
The speech writer, emulating many commentators on al Jazeera or al Manar, hopes to rally many among those who hate Bush and Blair but stops short of stating that Jihadism will hate all future US Presidents and British Prime Ministers if they do not convert. He reminds us of the Crusades, Inquisition, Hiroshima, and killings in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obviously, the writer skips the Genocides of Sudan, and the massacres of Algeria, the Kurds, Shiites perpetrated by Salafists or Baathists.
5) The enemies of Jihad in America
Sensationally but not unexpectedly, he name a number of intellectual-enemies in this country: Daniel Pipes, Steven Emerson, Robert Spencer and Michael Spencer. Rarely Jihadi Terrorists at this high level media exposure named symbols of their enemys intelligentsia. And in addition to experts named in the tape, Gadahn goes on a ferocious attack against American Tele-Evangelists and their media, showing the other type of foes al Qaeda is very upset with.
6) The friends of al Qaeda?
Azzam names sympathetic personalities for whom he has messages for action; He asks journalist Seymour Hirsh to reveal more than what was published in a New Yorker article on the War: Obviously an open call by al Qaeda to M Hirsch to resume the attack against the US War on Terror. Then Azzam turn to two British journalists and thank them for their admiration and respect for Islam encourage them to do the final step: Convert. He names British MP George Galloway and journalist Robert Fisk. But more troubling in Gadahns tape was his direct call to Jihadists within the US Armed forces to work patiently till the time comes and they should continue to aggregate while escaping the surveillance of their military authorities. This theme, which I covered briefly in Future Jihad, is of great concern to US national security. The Azzam speech brings further concerns as to the credibility of this threat.
7) The Al Qaeda offer: Conversion or fire
Azzams mission in this tape was to deliver a message. His bottom line is this: We the Jihadists- have you cornered everywhere and you are not going to win this war. His central message is typically Jihadic: Surrender, convert or the fire: Meaning war on Earth, all of it, and Hell fire after death.
****
This fascinating and revealing taped-speech bring the American public even closer to what lays ahead for this generation and the next one as long as the Jihadist ideology is spreading inside America and worldwide.
****
PS: This is a short version posting. The longer version will be posted later.
Dr Walid Phares is a Senior Fellow with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and a visiting Fellow with the European Foundation for Democracy. He is the author of Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies against America.
#1
In short, the Azzam video reconfirms clearly, in an English language that academic translators wont be able to distort, that al Qaedas movement worldwide and in the United States is seeking total annihilation or conversion of the enemy: American and other democracies.
You'd think that they'd want to keep this sort of highly polarizing message from reaching the bulk of their victims. Americans had better take this quite seriously, despite it coming from some sort of moronic traitor.
This traitor's handlers are quite serious and very devoted to what was said above. We must take them at their word and begin exterminating them. If Muslims are unwilling to assist us, then they cannot complain about collateral damage.
Kari Vogt, historian of religion at the University of Oslo, has stated that Ibn Warraqs book Why I am Not a Muslim is just as irrelevant to the study of Islam as The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion are to the study of Judaism. She is widely considered as one of the leading expert on Islam in Norway, and is frequently quoted in national media on matters related to Islam and Muslim immigration. People who get most of their information from the mainstream media, which goes for the majority of the population, will thus be systematically fed biased information and half-truths about Islam from our universities, which have largely failed to uphold the ideal of free inquiry. Unfortunately, this situation is pretty similar at universities and colleges throughout the West. Rest at link.
Western Universities have moved from the Age of Reason to the Age of Deconstruction.
While Chinese, Indian, Korean and other Asian Universities are graduating millions of motivated engineers and scientists every year, Western Universities have been reduced to little hippie factories, teaching about the wickedness of the West and the blessings of barbarism.
#2
Paul Findley, a former US Congressman, said that the cancer of anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic sentiments was spreading in American society and required corrective measures to stamp out. It was announced that the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) would be launching a massive $50 million media campaign involving television, radio and newspapers.
Or they could simply stop their co-relgionists from kiling Jews, Christians, Budhists, Hindus, and non-Wahabist Muslims.
#3
In 2005, Bin Talal bought 5.46% of voting shares in News Corp, the parent of Fox News. In December 2005 he boasted to Middle East Online about his ability to change what viewers see on Fox News. Covering the riots in France that fall, Fox ran a banner saying: Muslim riots. Bin Talal was not happy. I picked up the phone and called Murdoch [...] [and told him] these are not Muslim riots, these are riots out of poverty, he said. Within 30 minutes, the title was changed from Muslim riots to civil riots.
#4
"Western Universities have moved from the Age of Reason to the Age of Deconstruction."
You know how the word "Marxism" has over the years transmuted into "liberalism", then "progressivism", without the ideology actually changing?
Well in a similar way, the term "critical thought" has come to displace "deconstructionism", which is now viewed as negative by some threshold number of the population, so its propnenets decided to pretty it up with a name change.
And deconstruction was and is the enemy of reason.
A recent interview with George Soros had the man saying that "reason was not enough" for analysis of the world, that "critical thought" was required.
Think about that. "Reason is not enough".
Millenia of Western progress (the real kind) thrown aside for deconstruction or "critical thought" or whatever euphemism will be dreamt up in the coming years.
Know thine enemy. The Left stopped being part of the true thread of the West a long time ago.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
09/04/2006 18:54 Comments ||
Top||
Some commentators like to point out that many of the most passionate and bravest defenders of the West are women, citing Italian writer Oriana Fallaci and others as examples. But women like Ms. Fallaci, brave as they might be, are not representative of all Western women. If you look closely, you will notice that, on average, Western women are actually more supportive of Multiculturalism and massive immigration than are Western men. Rest at link.
Feminism was never really about equality. It was ALWAYS about female superiority. Feminism has always used the French Revolution (and its descendant memes) type of ideology as its foundation, one based in envy and a desire to take power, not see it equally available to all, men and women alike.
Anyone who still is arguing about how to make multiculturalism work is an idiot. Multiculturalism has ALREADY failed. But the left will not and cannot admit it.
The intellectual, political, and academic mandarins of Euroland - the horrible class of 1968 - are completely invested in the house of cards that form the philosophical underpinnings of multi-culti. To acknowledge the now-proven fact that it does not and cannot work would be to give lie to most of what they believe. This would require the very arduous task of rebuilding their world view from the ground up, and in their current ossified and reactionary mode they lack the intellectual courage and/or work ethic to do so.
It's interesting that the same people who believe that a made-up crisis like "global warming" can believe that climate change could move quickly and kill us all in ten or twenty are capable of seeing a crisis like the demographic collapse of the West (which has support of overwhelming empirical data) and be in complete, absolute denial of the fact that Europe is essentially finished in less than four generations.
As I've said here before, Europe has three possibilities by 2100:
1) Successfully and (mostly) peacefully kick the Islamicists out, undergo population collapse, become a depopulated cipher, become a historical afterthought with a tiny economy that contributes little or nothing to humanity.
2) Get taken over by extreme right-wing nationalists, remove theIslamicists by violent means (new holocaust), and end up being a fascistic region.
3) Get inundated by Islamicists who take over Europe and convert it into a Muslim Caliphate.
At this point, there are no other possibilities. Anyone who disagrees, please provide a credible, detailed mechanism on how Europe avoids one of these three fates - if you can't, then your not really debating, you're just wishing, and desperately, at that.
Our great grandchildren will likely have to recolonize Europe in order to rescue it.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
09/04/2006 16:18 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Feminism was never really about equality. It was ALWAYS about female superiority.
Not true of all feminism or all feminists. Some of us just wanted not to have to quit our jobs - permanently - when we were 4 months pregnant, as was required in my first professional job. Or to have our bosses offer a promotion if we'd sleep with him, as happened to me twice while I was a 30-something wife and mother who had earned that position by working hard and being damned good at what I did.
I couldn't agree more about the war against boys and its disastrous effects. But don't lay that at the feet of ALL feminists. Those of us who worked harder for less and fought for every promotion chance we got should not be lumped with the leftwing ideologues. We faced real abuses and limitations and the distorting claims of those who followed us should not be allowed to hide that fact.
I have no desire to live in a multiculti society nor one run on leftwing ideological bases. But neither will I go back to what I faced in my 20s -- and if the Right tries it, I will be out fighting them as hard as I am fighting the Left today. The Islamacist sons of bitches will not put my daughter in burkha and neither will the Right wing here do the equivalent in the name of dismantling the abuses of ideological leftists who used feminism as a ruse to advance their cause.
#3
What lotp said, although by the time I started working there was no question of my work being judged fairly on the merits. Feminism was originally about women not being legal minors forever in the power of the male head of the household, followed by being able to enter the work world on an equal footing with men (what lotp had to fight for). Some of the early man-hating was legitimately earnt, just as there are Muslim women (and non-Muslim as well -- we Western women have it easy!) who have real reasons to hate the men around them. That the Feminist movement has become the property of the reasonless man-haters is a sign of how much has changed, not a reflection on the primary and secondary goals.
#4
I think lotp and tw nailed it, but would add the ADD/Ritalin craze is actively damaging boys in favor of pussied classrooms and zombie-like homes. The fads in teaching K-12 (overwhelmingly by woman teachers) do active damage to ALL children, especially the emphasis on self-esteem and "no losers" in sports and competitive games
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/04/2006 18:22 Comments ||
Top||
#5
No shortage finding guys to try out for the high school football team, though. Funny how quickly all that nonsense wears off when the hormones start coursing through the veins.
Certainly in my lifetime feminism has not been about equality but rather about women dominating men and punishing men alive today for crimes (real and imagined) of men in the past.
The struggles and problems you faced were certainly daunting. But I don't think that rectifying them calls for something called "feminism".
How about gender neutral good old fashioned FAIRNESS AND COMMON SENSE?
Paying people equal amounts for equal work and providing for equality of opportunity isn't feminist, it's just common sense - and it's good business sense, as well. I want the best and brightest working for me. That maximizes my profits. And the thought of hitting on one of my employees seems more ridiculous than repulsive - neither of us can do what we came for if we're dallying, and I've already got a wife. All around waste of time. I didn't need "feminism" to tell me this, just a head for capitalism and a set of priorities.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
09/04/2006 18:44 Comments ||
Top||
#7
LOPT - that was a great post except for this: and if the Right tries it,
You are blaming it on the right? Girl, girl, girl. I guess it was only Republican men asking co-workers to sleep with them for promotions and only for, thank god, men on the left like Ted Kennedy that saved you from that fate.
IIRC - the conservative side did warn that working full time and having time for your children might not be as easy as it seemed. And in regards to any other questions of the day - such as girls would be just like boys if given trucks to play with and boys like girls if given dolls- I guess those brilliant discoveries were only resisted by those on the right. And as for all of the other warnings that came out from those terrible women who argued keep the status quo - I hardly think it was just mothers on the right who kept you down or only men on the right who grabbed your boobs.
The women's movement of which you so eloquently speak was never right v/s left - it was about women pioneers, such as yourself, proving by doing that the status quo could be changed and that women could contribute as well as men.
#9
But I don't think that rectifying them calls for something called "feminism".
It did at the time.
How about gender neutral good old fashioned FAIRNESS AND COMMON SENSE?
Paying people equal amounts for equal work and providing for equality of opportunity isn't feminist, it's just common sense
Common sense in your definition was in short supply when I started my career. The prevailing "common sense" was that women were hormone driven, inherently riskier as employees, unable to balance home and work, not intellectually cut out for demanding technical jobs and almost certainly unable or unwilling to rise to the demands of a job that required working until the job was done or travelling.
I was refused a technical job on the grounds that it might require me to work on Saturdays one or two times a year, which was how often the systems shop actually installed updates that had to be done when others were off the mainframe.
The idiot who got it instead not only got the 12% pay raise, he also f*cked up the machine twice when we needed to get info out to the Joint Chiefs' staff.
I didn't need "feminism" to tell me this, just a head for capitalism and a set of priorities.
May I gently suggest that by the time you were in charge of a staff you didn't need this because the world had changed as a result of feminism?
#10
To me, the feminist movement (as opposed to the women's movement) will always be remembered by its crowning moment - Patricia Ireland accepting a six figure check to speak out about a womens right to get ahead by giving head. It's just personal business ya see. Ever wonder about that other girl - you know - the one who didn't get Monica's job even though she was more qualified? I guess you could say she blew it by not blowing it. But hey, that was her own personal choice.
#11
It exasperates me to see people do what you are doing, 2b -- making up your own definition of terms.
The movement = feminism for decades. It was over the abortion issue that feminists divided in the 80s. I was on the streets of Los Angeles in the mid 80s keeping women from being doused with water (and worse) and called horrid names and sometimes threatened and followed to their homes for going into a health clinic.
And at the VERY same time I and some latina women were fighting the lesbian grad students from UCLA for control of the local NOW chapter. We lost, because they tapped into a lot of students who frankly lost interest after the elections. The latinas and I went off and continued to do what we had done for years: help mothers in the barrios with health care for their babies and legal services when they got beat up badly by their husbands.
Don't try to teach me what these words mean: I WAS THERE, in the middle of it.
#12
lopt - fair enough. But I would disagree that the right is trying to set back the clock on women working. Now.. as for the Islamofacist movement ....well that's another story!
#14
And those people stole your movement, and destroyed it. Don't expect us to respect the corpse.
Just like the progressives stole the word liberal, in the beginning of the last century. And the race warriors stole the civil rights movement in the 70s.
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/04/2006 19:40 Comments ||
Top||
#16
And those people stole your movement, and destroyed it. Don't expect us to respect the corpse
I don't. I just refuse to let the husk they've created stand for the entirety of what I and many other women worked very hard for.
I refused to put up with snide "you're sleeping with the enemy" shit from arrogant 20-somethings who had never built a marriage, birthed a child, buried a parent or worked at a real job.
I won't put up with the same sort of simplistic ideology from the other side either.
#17
In the beginning, it was the feminist movement that did help women from being locked in traditional roles, there is no doubt about it. And the hard work that it took to get there should not be forgotten due to what the "feminist" movement implies today.
The term feminist is sadly associated with elevating gay and lesbian roles and mocking those who chose to stay in traditional roles. It's interesting to hear that you lived that transformation in such a personal manner.
I'm not really arguing with your points - my comment about Monica was snarky but posted in good faith (and before your response). When I hear the word "feminist" I think of gay/lesbian/gender bending raised to a staus above a heterosexual woman who may or may not choose to marry and have a family.
I think "women's movement" is a better term because it was women such as yourself who made it happen. Maybe that's offensive to you because you once called yourself a feminist - and I'm sorry that I was snarky about it. But "feminist" does carry all that baggage of what the movement later became. You are right not to let people skew the history of the very hard work invovled. My apologies.
It's hard for those who weren't there to understand what we faced and how feminism got hijacked.
But I don't give up the name easily because I paid for it. Those days in the 80s when I protected health clinics? There were BOMBINGS going on then. Women going into clinics and those protecting them were harrassed, threatened, had our cars followed and got threatening phone calls at home. Some of my latina friends got beaten up badly by their husband or relatives just for going for a checkup at the clinic or taking their daughters for one.
I *earned* the right to be called a feminist, just as my blue collar father earned the right to be respected for his work in the early unionization of his industry, where men died in their 40s due to horrific working conditions that were totally unnecessary. He hated what unions later became and fought that; I hate what NOW and its ilk became and fight that.
If I let you define me out of "feminism" then Ireland and her harpy leftists will have won. I'm too stubborn to go along quietly with that.
#20
lopt, am affraid that there is little you can do to regain the ownership. Same with "liberal", "human rights", "civil liberties"... All these have been hijacked, in one degree or another, by leftist and their totalitarian associates.
Now we have even "al-Qaeda activists". I am curious what MSM would come up next once the "activist" would equate with "terrorist". Already "millitant" has pretty much the same meaning.
Funny thing is that in the official muzzie press they call the "al-Qaeda activists" deviants or misreants and even terrorists.
#21
lotp, as one of the younger ones who only heard the stories, thanks for what you and your friends have done for us and generations yet to come.
And yes, I consider myself to be a feminist, but not in the sense that it is being used today. By the time I was old enough to do anything in the late 80's, the movement had already been taken over by "anti-breeders" who considered abortion something approaching a sacrament, and had far too little concern for any woman who is NOKD (mainly rich, willing to toe the ideological party line, preferably lesbian and white). The suffragettes, if they would have still been alive, would have wept.
BTW, the idea of paying a woman the same money for doing the same exact work as a man....classically feminist. And I thank the classical feminists, not the modern NOW version, every day for their unwillingness to sit and take it so that I could go to college, have the choice and not the obligation to stop working to take care of my son after he is born, and the right to control my reproductive health. (Think I'm kidding about the last one? Hardly. My mother needed my father's permission in 1969 to get her tubes tied after the birth of my brother. Seriously, WTF??? Her uterus was his property under state law. If you wanted to come up with something that could possibly incite man-hating, you couldn't do better than that. Don't act like some of that anti-male attitude wasn't deserved. It did go overboard, but so did the laws like the one I just mentioned that were passed by men to control their women.)
I'm also glad to see that the men of Rantburg think that demanding sexual favors from female employees is a stupid idea, but trust me, it still goes on. You might not get fired for making the complaint, but it is almost always career suicide. It happened to me personally and to one of my close friends. I guess the fact that we didn't get fired is "progress", but we still have trouble seeing it that way.
There's still a lot to be done, but unfortunately NOW and their ilk just are standing in the way and doing what they can to make the average woman's life worse.
Did you see that video of the two Fox journalists announcing they'd converted to Islam? The larger problem, it seems to me, is that much of the rest of the Western media have also converted to Islam, and there seems to be no way to get them to convert back to journalism.
Consider, for example, the bizarre behavior of Reuters, the once globally respected news agency now reduced to putting out laughably inept terrorist propaganda. A few days ago, it made a big hoo-ha about the Israelis intentionally firing a missile at its press vehicle and wounding its cameraman Fadel Shana. Shana was posed in an artful sprawl in a blood-spattered shirt. But it had ridden up and underneath his undershirt was spotlessly white, like a summer-stock Julius Caesar revealing the boxers under his toga. What's stunning is not that almost all Western media organizations reporting from the Middle East are reliant on local staff overwhelmingly sympathetic to one side in the conflict -- that's been known for some time -- but the amateurish level of fakery that head office is willing to go along with.
Down at the other end of the news business, meanwhile, one finds items like this snippet from the Sydney Morning Herald: "A 16-year-old girl was tailed by a car full of men before being dragged inside and assaulted in Sydney's west last night, police say . . . "The three men involved in the attack were described to police as having dark 'mullet-style' haircuts."
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: ed ||
09/04/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Fixed ideas are anathema to Western Civilization. Eventually, our politicians will have to settle the issue of set core values, and base our Constitution on same. Our treatment of the internal Muslim menace, does not reflect an appropriate balance of liberty and security. They need to be kept on a tight leash, with a choke hold. To a Muslim, indulgence means: jihad terror license.
#2
almost all Western media organizations reporting from the Middle East are reliant on local staff overwhelmingly sympathetic to one side in the conflict
Indeed they are. Would that this was the only problem. Shall we add:
How American academias deluge of self-loathing devolves from:
1) Falsely assigning a zero-sum equation to capitalism
2) Blind adherence to a Puritan Christian heritage that exalts altruism
3) Their same detestation of ego and all forms of enlightened self-service
4) Intense hatred of independent thought and the indispensable nature of creativity
But, even so, it's quite a leap to omit the most pertinent fact and leave the impression the Sydney constabulary are combing the city for mullets.
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.
