« October 2005 | Main | December 2005 »
November 30, 2005
Grab a cup of coffee, sit back and . . .
It's worth your time.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 1:37 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
November 29, 2005
So now we're dangerous. . .
This story is getting a bit of press today.
For those that don't like clicking on links, the story tells how Quantas and Air New Zealand now have a policy that forbids seaing an unaccompanied child next to. . . wait for it. . . . a man.
I'll bet you thought I'd say something like . . . a clown, or maybe an Arab between the ages of 17 and 35, or maybe a priest. Alas, no, the new Quantas and ANZ policy just keeps it simple. No unaccompanied kids next to men, period.
The big guy linked to Dr. Helen (isn't that his wife?) about it, and about an hour earlier, I caught mention of the policy on Neil Boortz's radio show. I kept waiting to hear Quantas and ANZ's reasoning for the policy, but that seems to be noticably absent, they confirm the policy, but so far no one seems to know why or how this policy came about.
I myself travelled many times on airliners as an "unaccompanied child" when I spent the summers in sunny California with my grandparents. The experience was always pleasant, even with loud, obnoxious and fat passengers next to me (regardless of their sex) and many times I got bumped up to first class (usually surrounded by MALE business flyers) and I even got quite a few cockpit tours (with the pilots and radio operator being male), even getting to flip a few switches and talk to a tower once.
Now I understand why they don't give kids cockpit tours anymore in this age of Islamofascist terrorism, and I can even understand why they don't give out "wings" (little plastic pilot's wings) to kids. After all, I'm sure some kid was at some time poked himself with the pin and then of course those parents probably sued the airline. (I on the other hand, would poke other people with the pin, usually while standing in the crush of people at the baggage carosel. Hey, I needed to. . . in order to get in close enough to spot and grab my hard sided green suitcase that was bigger than me.) But that's all well and good.
However, I also enjoyed meeting people on the plane. They usually went on and on about how I was such a "brave little boy" for travelling alone (nevermind that I was put into the sealed metal tube of a plane by my Mom and had my brave little hand held by a flight attendant until my Grandparents verified with the airline that they were the party to pick me up, bravery had nothing to do with it). I also met my first TV/Movie star on a plane (forget who it was no, he was on some soap opera and all his movies flopped) and I think I even drummed up a bit of business for my Grandfater (who was in the Ad-Spec biz, which I thought was particularly neat because of all the logo'd cool pens and flashlights and golf-balls) by talking with a male passenger seated next to me on the plane once.
Of course there were times I'd rather have not been seated next to the person the airline tagged me up with. Once there was a very overweight woman who was deathly afraid of flying. That was a fun (NOT!) trip because not only was she digging her fingernails into my arm with each bump, hiss and every time that damn "fasten seat belt" DING sounded, but we landed in New Orleans in the middle of a thunderstorm. I had bruises for a week from this woman grabbing my arm in fear and screaching "Oh my God! Oh my God!" at the top of her lungs for the 25 minute descent into Moisant (now Louis Armstrong) Airport.
This policy, of simply banning male passengers from sitting next to unaccompanied children is RIDICULOUS, in fact, it's actually offensive. Is Quantas and ANZ trying to say that all men are some sort of threat to children? Are we now so politically correct that all men must be hidden and kept away from children because we might infect them with a love of football, construction equipment and all the neato features of today's jumbo jets. Has the politically correct crowd finally convinced our friends down under that all males are a threat?
It really doesn't make any sense to me other than Qantas and ANZ must be sucking up to some activist group like "Women who think Men are Evil!" or some such.
So does anyone have any info on this policy? How or Why it was started or whatever?
Kinda makes me want to book flights on Qantas, get shuffled around the plane a bit and then sue for "gender profiling".
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 1:29 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
November 26, 2005
The "Taliban Bodies" Report. . . Gumbad Revisited
U.S. Central Command has released their Executive Summary-Investigation into the Gumbad Incident (previously I had used the name reported by the press, Gonbaz) where the corpses of two Taliban fighters were burned by soldiers from the 508th Infantry (Airborne) and that information was subsequently broadcast by Psychological Operations troops in order to "smoke out" more suspected Taliban hiding in the area.
I previously blogged about this incident as the story broke. All previous posts are in their own category here, or if you prefer to read them in order, use these links.
Oh Brother. . .
Ok, time to elaborate. . .
So what's really going on. . . (The Interview with Stephen Dupont)
Martinkus, Dupont and The Truth. . .
TIME begins to correct the record. . .
On to the report:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Investigation into the Gumbad IncidentBACKGROUND
On Sept. 30, Soldiers from Company B, 1st Battalion, 508th Infantry (Airborne), Regional
Command South, Combined Joint Task Force-76 (CJTF-76) engaged the enemy near
Gumbad, in the Shah Wali Kot district in northern Kandahar Province. The Gumbad area
has been a location of known enemy activity. The engagement left one U.S. Soldier,
one Afghan National Army soldier, two Taliban fighters dead, and several wounded in
action. Twenty-four hours after the combat action, local nationals from Gumbad village
had yet to retrieve the enemy combatant remains.The following environmental and operational conditions existed:
· The temperature in that area exceeded 90 degrees with no shade nearby.
· The rocky terrain was such that it prevented the Soldiers from burying the
remains.
· The hilltop where the enemy combatant remains were located afforded the best
tactical advantage for follow on combat operations.
· The unit believed that it would remain at this position for another 48 hours.
· Enemy forces were still suspected to be in the area, but were at that time not
located.On Oct. 1, at approximately 1400 hours, an officer from the unit decided to burn the
bodies for hygiene reasons and to protect his Soldiers. At the time of this decision, his
battalion commander was meeting with village leaders in Gumbad village to brief them
on the combat actions of the previous day and to coordinate with them the retrieval of
the remains of the enemy combatants. (The battalion commander was unaware of the
fact that the officer had directed the burning of the enemy remains). At approximately
1600 hours, the battalion commander contacted the officer to let him know that the
villagers were moving to the position to retrieve the enemy remains. It was at this time
when the battalion commander was advised of his subordinate’s directive to burn the
remains -- he immediately ordered that the remains be extinguished. The unit
complied. When the villagers reached the position, they found the remains were not
able to be moved. They returned to Gumbad and let the battalion commander know that
they would dispose of the remains the next day.Several hours after the burning of the enemy remains had started, a psychological
operations loudspeaker team, after hearing about the burning of remains on the tactical
radio, decided to use that information in two subsequent messages directed towards
both the village and towards an adjacent mountainous area where the enemy was
suspected to be hiding.
So there you have it. The actual facts of the incident which vary considerably from the initial reporting and the subsequent play the issue received in the Main Stream Media. Rather than a deliberate offense to Islam, the bodies were burned for hygienic reasons, and the PsyOps operative utilized battlefield information to affect a "Words not Bombs" approach to dealing with hiding Taliban fighters still in the area.
The report goes on to address the legality of the burning of the bodies, refuting claims that the Airborne troop's actions were a violation of the Geneva Convention. The report also admits that the soldiers involved do not normally receive training in the procedures for cremation of battlefield remains and notes that the officers involved exercised poor judgment in their decision-making and reporting process.
1) CJTF-76 investigation revealed that U.S. Coalition forces did not violate the Law of War.
2) The Law of War requires the internment of enemy remains by burial or cremation. In particular, Article 17 of the 1949 Geneva Convention allows for the cremation of enemy remains for hygiene reasons and religious purposes.
3) CJTF-76 Soldiers are given basic training on the Law of War which only covers that enemy combatants may be buried or cremated, but does not go into the procedures that are to be followed. Procedures for cremation are much more extensive than what the Soldiers on the ground understood.
4) While not a violation of the Law of War, the burning of remains is not an acceptable practice according to Islamic religious beliefs and customs. CJTF-76 acknowledges that Islamic custom calls for the burial of the dead within 24 to 72 hours of death and that any burial should be conducted by Muslims.
5) The Soldiers at Gumbad did not have a thorough knowledge of the local Afghan traditions with respect to burial. This incident was the first time that this unit had killed enemy combatants at close range and had to determine what to do with the remains.
6) Finally, CJTF-76 investigation shows that there was no intent to desecrate, only to hygienically dispose of the enemy remains. The weather was hot, the remains were heavily damaged by gunfire, laying exposed for over 24 hours and beginning to rapidly decompose. The unit planned to remain on that hill for 48 to 72 more hours and thus made the decision to dispose of the remains in this manner for hygiene reasons only. The investigation also found that there was no action taken to hide this incident. When ordered to extinguish the remains by a senior officer who was at the time coordinating with local villagers to take custody of the enemy remains for burial, the unit complied immediately.
7) Based on the criminal investigation, there was no evidence to substantiate the allegation of desecration or any violation of the Law of War. However, there was evidence of poor decision-making and judgment, poor reporting and lack of knowledge and respect for local Afghan customs and tradition. Two Soldiers displayed poor judgment during this incident. They have received General Officer Memorandums of Reprimand.
It's unfortunate that the officers involved are going to have their careers curtailed because they now have GOM'R's in their personnel file, everyone makes mistakes, and these officers believed they were acting in the proper manner with regard to battlespace hygiene and in accordance with the Geneva Convention (Sections 17 and 120 are relevant to this issue, unfortunately, the soldiers did not fully exercise the provisions of Section 120; they failed to ascertain the identity of the Taliban corpses), but that's the Army and they were the officers in charge.
Personally, I think it's asking a bit much for every soldier on the line to be thoroughly versed in the Muslim culture, but we're trying to fight the proverbial "sensitive war" here I guess. The media over-reaction to the incident insured that someone was going to get the shaft despite their commitment to the mission of actually rooting out the Taliban remnants, which should have been the story in the first place and not some fabricated story about "intentional desecration".
With regard to the PsyOps operation on the scene, this activity took place hours after the burning of the bodies and was the result of the PsyOps operatives learning of the event and deciding to use the event to draw out Taliban forces hiding among a civilian population. Despite the seeming humaneness of using "words not bombs" to deal with the situation at hand, the report finds that the PsyOps operatives went too far and their messages were in violation of standing policy:
1) CJTF-76 investigation revealed that U.S. psychological operations forces did broadcast two loudspeaker messages designed to incite fleeing Taliban to fight. These messages mentioned the burning of enemy remains and were in violation of standing policies for the content of loudspeaker messages.
2) The criminal investigation revealed that there was no evidence to substantiate that the remains were burned for the purpose of providing content for the loudspeaker message. However, the investigation did reveal that the loudspeaker operator did willfully violate known standards for message content and standards for reporting his activities during the conduct of missions. Additionally the operator and his supervisor failed to follow documentation and reporting procedures surrounding this incident. Their conduct falls well below the acceptable standards of behavior for Soldiers.
3) As a result of these actions, two Soldiers who displayed poor judgment and sub-standard performance during this incident received non-judicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Additionally, both were issued General Officer Memorandums of Reprimand – the most serious administrative action that the command can impose. The command also directed that the two Soldiers and the unit commander be reassigned to other duties for rehabilitative reasons.
Again, it's unfortunate that these soldiers got GOM'Red for the incident, but considering the political hay and inflammation that the initial media reports created in the region (sound familiar?), someone was going to get punished, again we're seeing the "sensitive side of war".
When this story first came to my attention via Dan at Riehl World View, I knew I smelled a rat in the reports first coming in which linked the two events. The Centcom report confirms what I sniffed out at the time, that the incidents were "separate" although "related":
Two Separate but Related Incidents. While the initial media report presented the impression that the burning of enemy combatant remains and the broadcast of offensive loudspeaker messages were one action, CJTF-76 investigation revealed that the incident at Gumbad was comprised of two separate, but related actions: first, the hygienic disposal of remains subsequent to the firefight in Gumbad; and second, the broadcast of information pertaining to the burning of enemy combatant remains.
What's unfortunate about the reporting from Stephen Dupont and John Martinkus was their depiction of the U.S. Soldiers as "intentionally desecrating" the Taliban Bodies and their connection of two separate events into one inflammatory event. While it's my belief that Stephen Dupont acted in good faith in his reporting and his attempts to objectively record an event that was certainly important, Dupont's story was hijacked by a known anti-war activist and a "reporter" who operates from a distinct and visible bias, the distortion of the facts by Martinkus was picked up by AP and other news outlets and by midday, the story was broadcast and printed worldwide as an "intentional desecration" perpetrated by U.S. soldiers even as Dupont himself was trying to correct Martinkus's distortion.
I find it highly doubtful that the MSM will go to any lengths whatsoever to fully correct the record with this incident, when objective reporting and fact-checking pointed to the same conclusions reached by Centcom the MSM reluctantly gave it buried mentions and didn't fully correct the inflammatory reporting of Martinkus. In fact, the MSM has already begun to repeat its policy of inflammation by now reporting mainly on the reprimands of the troops and not the larger charges that were fabricated by Martinkus and which the troops were cleared of. Some are even still playing the incident as one solitary incident of desecration rather than two "separate but related" incidents.
So now we have another case closed of "false but accurate" reporting with regard to the War on Terror. Once again we've seen the media get hijacked by the anti-war activist left that mostly seeks only to portray the U.S. and her actions in the worst possible light. Once again we see the media ignore common sense rather than use it to sniff out the truth of the situation.
The reporting by Martinkus twisting and manipulating Stephen Dupont's on-the-scene coverage disturbs me, both in the content of the reporting and the glee with which the MSM picked it up and ran with it. Just like the Korans (not) flushed at Gitmo, the media has disregarded the truth in favor of a biased and partisan position designed to damage U.S. - Islamic relations and risk undoing the good work of our military in order to make a few headlines and grab some viewers, regardless of the consequences.
Hopefully the next time that Martinkus files a report critical of the U.S. Military, the MSM will examine the evidence and report only the true facts and not the propaganda of the anti-war left. I won't hold my breath though.
--Jason
NOTE: This seems like a good time to throw in a link to Urban Legends about the Iraq War without the need for a separate post.
Posted by JasonColeman at 11:03 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
Well now. . . .ther's shootin' in Syria
DEBKAfile is reporting that Syrian and U.S. forces engaged each other with both sides taking casualties:
Syria claims US forces suffered 11 casualties in a Syrian-US clash Thursday night, Nov. 24 – without clarifying whether they meant dead or wounded. . .Internal Syrian communications channels report Syrian “Desert Guards” border units fought US Marines who crossed into Syria at a point west of al Qaim. They also claimed 30 Syrian casualties.
DEBKAfile’s military sources report the battle took place at the Syrian-Iraqi border town of Abu Kemal. US forces were in hot pursuit of a group of al Qaeda operatives who fled across to Syria in escape an American attack pinning them down in Mosul. The US military delivered Syria an ultimatum to hand the terrorists over. The American pursuit continued Friday when Syria failed to respond.
DEBKA is an interesting source for news, sometimes they drop the ball, but more often than not they seem to be about 24 to 36 hours ahead of the American MSM.
Israpundit noticed it too (as did The Commissar and others). Technically I'm a day behind on this one, but I'm not finding much info past what DEBKA reported. Anyone else out there have any other info?
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 10:44 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The first Blogad. . .
You may have noticed that I've got my first Blogad over there on the right. WOOT, Boy Howdy! Am I on my way now or what? People actually want to advertise here (Ok, Ok, that's not entirely true, it's a trade, no money is changing hands.).
I was flattered that someone even offered me the trade. Especially since I'm no longer a "Large Mammal" in the TTLB with the recent changes, more on that in another post which I'll link HERE after it's done.
Not to make this useless, self-serving post any longer, but I do wanna say "Hey, why don't you go take a few minutes and check out the T-Shirts over at FreedomStone, I'll be buying a couple as Christmas Gifts for some Moonbats on my list." It's easier than sending a big lump of coal through the mail, and it'll tick 'em off. So it's a win win.
I think this will be the one I send:
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 11:11 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
November 23, 2005
Death by Indictment. . .
Here's an interesting post I came across today. It raises some points to consider when businesses are subject to indictment. I'm sure I'll be coming back to this once the Tom Delay indictment is tossed out on its ear and everyone is talking about malicious prosecution by partisan district attorneys.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 5:47 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Hmmmm, yet again. . . .
By now you've probably heard of the big black 'X' that CNN ran over video of one of Vice President Cheney's last speeches. CNN has claimed that the superimposed X was merely a "glitch", but I am not quite in agreement with that.
Personally, I'm not convinced it was a "glitch", in college I spent a lot of time developing a campus television station and while we had our share of "glitches" they resulted mainly from jury-riggin' off the shelf consumer, professional and home-made components together to put a single feed out. As I understand modern television broadcast control boards, the event as CNN describes it would be a one in a billion shot, more prone to happen when coming into or out of a another feed and not just popping up in the middle of a feed as a glitch.
It's my opinion, and only my opinion, that someone in the control booth had the 'X' up on another feed source and thought it'd be a good funny to superimpose the two together. I do not think it was "official policy" or "commentary" on CNN's part, nor do I think it was intentional beyond those few misguided souls who sought to tarnish the Vice-President by taking advantage of the power of the media they "control".
I've got more links, but I'm gonna force you through this little rant first (scroll down a bit if you like).
The media today is seriously "out of control", now on the surface, that statement may rankle some. I encourage you to bear with me though; by "out of control" I'm not suggesting that there be some sort of outside over lording oversight or manipulation of the media. I'm as big a First Amendment supporter as you're gonna find. What I'm suggesting is that the media has become DRUNK WITH THEIR OWN POWER. They've taken the instantaneous and simultaneous effects of mass media and the internet as a junkie would take hard drugs straight to the vein. In their drunken state they've stumbled into a position where the media seems to believe that it is "making the news" rather than "reporting the news."
Objective "reporting" seems to be a lost art form in America AND the World. Gone are the lessons I learned in Journalism classes where the reporter should actively guard against becoming PART of the story, gone is the desire or nay, RESPONSIBILITY to present both sides of the story objectively. It's so easy to use the Mary Mapes/Dan Rather/CBS Memos (link is to animated gif showing the "1972 memos" and an identical copy created in minutes using a modern version of MS word with default settings) story to illustrate this point, and the recent creation of "false but accurate" reporting as legitimate journalism. The mass media tries to deny that it's practicing "false but accurate" reporting, but the cat's out of the bag. There are too many sources for news consumers to verify and fact-check with today to keep the FbA strategy a secret. Whether it's Koran's (not) flushed down toilets or memos created in MS Word to try to affect the outcome of a Presidential election, the media has openly begun to take sides on the issues, crafting their reports to actually "create" news out of whole cloth that will change the direction of political and national action throughout the nation and world.
The media has given up the ghost of objectivity with its recent discovery of instant media delivery and the ability to instantly correct, re-write, embellish and re-direct its stories. Today we see the most inflammatory, incredible and offensive images and reports broadcast immediately upon receipt of often very flawed information. In their race to scoop, the media has bought into every crackpot conspiracy theme and accepted any lunatic with a crumpled up photocopied "memo" as gospel. The media speaks all day long about their supposed "fact-checking" and their commitment to the truth, but the reality shows a much different picture.
The picture we're presented with as consumers of mass media is one of despair, lies, manipulations, half-truths and downright lies. Reporting from Iraq is overwhelmingly focused on suicide (homicide) bombers (insurgents (freedom-fighters)), the casualty counts (for the American side) are a mantra of despair in the mass media, and there was downright elation on the part of the media when the count hit 2000. CNN prepared special theme music and graphics to tout the 2,000th death in the Iraq War and spent considerable time in their celebration of the death to degrade the efforts and successes our troops on the ground were making in their struggle to bring freedom to 25 million Iraqis.
Abu Grahib is another example of the media's desire to present the worst and gloss over the best. The accusations against the Secretary of Defense and the President as the orchestrators of the Abu Grahib travesties was touted far and wide, but when those actually responsible were found to be guilty of crimes by the Department of Defense and the American Justice System, hardly a peep was uttered by the MSM. Today though, the left (and leftist media) love to drag out Abu Grahib and blame it on the President, when the actual perpetrators are sitting in prison.
Why? I'm sure you're asking, I sure am. I can't begin to pretend that I know all the answers, but I suggest that it really comes down to my suggestion that the media is drunk with power. In their drunken state they are acting just like a traditional drunk by becoming belligerent, dishonest, aggressive and overly loud in spouting off about whatever popped into their drunken minds, without regard for the truth, their perception in the eyes of others and the consequences of their actions.
The "Koran flushed" story by Newsweek was exactly akin to a drunk getting behind the wheel of a car. The drunk thinks he has it all in control, and so did the Newsweek reporter. The drunk thinks that despite his weak physical condition his superiority over others in the same or inferior states will protect him. The reporter enters into this same mindset when he gets a particularly sensational story, the story becomes whisky and in drinking the story over and over again the reporter becomes intoxicated with it. The reporter disregards authentication, counter-point or opposing views, instead relying on their own superiority and their "ability" to see beyond the facts to protect them.
Just like the drunk, the reporter is more and more often waking up to a hangover, only in the reporters case, the hangover is caused by critics, opposing news agencies and the newly emerging blogosphere to deliver the headache and that sickly feeling. The incorrect news item has a lifespan of a few days at the top of the heap, then the fact-checkers tear it apart, presenting the true facts and the true events in sharp contrast to the drunken reports pushed out to grab headlines.
Unlike the drunk however, there's not an force of police officers out there to catch him and throw him in jail for actions that can be just as dangerous as a drunk driver (sometimes even more so, in the case of the "Koran (not) flushed"). Instead the reporter has a series of enablers who will help him weather his hangover, as series of very responsible and honest looking attorneys and executives who will trot out their "overwhelming faith and confidence in the veracity of the reporting", they will play this enabling dance for as long as need be, wearing down the public and their appetite for the story until such time as everyone has given up on the REAL TRUTH, instead having to settle for a cloud of disinformation, untruths, false reporting, cover-ups and then the inevitable one-sided book deals to promote the idea that the drunken reporter was unfairly attacked for the substance of their "false but accurate" reporting.
It's ridiculous but it's understandable. Why is it understandable? Simple, the mainstream media is made up mainly of morons, simpletons who only find value in the negatives because it sells papers or captures viewers. These simpletons are reinforced by an army of accountants and executives who are so afraid of the shadow of the truth that they embrace the fuzzy facts and encourage sensationalism by condoning the use of "many say" "sources close" and "some say" as ways of getting around having to actually find the truth of the matter. In the modern world, if you can find one person to expound falsehoods or truths publicly, that's great, but if you have a conspiracy theory that you can't back up, it's now become perfectly acceptable to create false documents, create false reports and more, only to attribute them to secret sources, "some say" and other such ambiguous and deceptive sourcing methods.
The media has failed, just as certainly as the drunken fool will fail, but unlike the drunken fool, the media is propped up largely by the vestiges of the media monopoly, which in my opinion can't crumble fast enough. The major networks still hold their edge and the cable media outlets are scooping up the masses that want more, but other forces are beginning to emerge, the power of instant communications helped the media until it fell into the hands of the masses, where the power of the internet is being harnessed by individuals to create a worldview that is tailored to their interests and needs. The spoon feeding of America is over, although in their final throes the MSM is trying to poison the very nation that gave her such freedom, in their last gasps, they are doing whatever they can to disrupt and increasingly peaceful world and create the drunken fools love of chaos.
I suggest that if a major media source were to begin focusing on the realities of the world today from a factual objective viewpoint, they would become immensely successful. If they coupled that factual objective news with financial analysis and education, they'd find their advertisers and profits soar as millions upon millions tuned in to find out what the truth actually was and how they could benefit from seeking and knowing such truth. I suspect that if a major news agency were to shift away from "analysis" and turn more toward "raw facts" they would see a substantial increase in viewership or readership. I suspect that any return to a responsible and OBJECTIVE media would be embraced by those that hold the middle of the American divide (and we all know there are more "consumers" in the middle than on the fringes).
I know at least my TV would be turned more to a network that practiced the ojective reporting of truth and abandoned the false but accurate themes of the MSM today. Which for me would be an improvement because C-Span and C-Span2 are getting mighty boring this time of year.
--------------------------------------
So that's it for the rant, now I promised you some links on the 'X'. First we have this audio clip I found at Daily Pundit who doesn't quite vouch for its authenticity, and neither do I but I'll leave it to you to be the judge. The clip comes from an outfit called Team Hollywood who appear to be somewhat partisan in their own right. That doesn't exclude them as a valid source; it only casts doubt on it. After all, one would hardly expect a left leaning group to call up and complain about the 'X', they'd be too busy laughing and cheering CNN, and no one who's "neutral" would necessarily be phoning up CNN either. Listen to the tape and then read the updates at Daily Pundit, you can make your own decisions from there.
Others talking about the 'X' include:
American Daughter - CNN says X was intentional
Brutally Honest - CNN, can we get an explanation for this?
The Political Teen has the video - which looks more like a cross-fade dissolve or lap-dissolve than a "glitch".
Wizbang chimes in with the Team Hollywood audio clip and has links to much more commentary.
Cake or Death - Now that's why I don't watch CNN
Stop the ACLU offers some subliminal images of their own. They also are all over the Team Hollywood tape now.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 10:20 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
November 22, 2005
If you don't read Michael Yon. . .
YOU SHOULD!!!!!
Ok, now that that's done, and I've convinced you that you should be reading Michael Yon: Online Magazine, I'll be nice and point you at his latest dispatch from Iraq which is a brief photo-essay. This is my "sit down and grab a cup of coffee" link for the day. Head on over and start reading, scrolling and clicking; read, scroll, click.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 9:52 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The skinny on willy. . .
No, I'm not talking about Bill Clinton or any of his anatomy, as a friend suggested while looking over my shoulder at the title of this post!
What I AM talking about is White Phosphorus, WP or Willy-Pete. There's been significant chatter from the ignorant left wing of the world's press trying to reclassify WP as a "chemical weapon". While it's true that WP is a "chemical", it's not a "chemical weapon" because of what it does and how it's used. WP is an incendiary and illumination munition, you either fire it up in the air where the charge explodes, igniting the WP and it burns with a bright white light as it descends (usually assisted by a little parachute) providing illumination, or you use it in something like a hand grenade that will explode, ignite and burn anything around it. In their zeal to cast America and her allies as the bad guys, the left wing of the press (yes, there is a right wing to the press as well, it's just smaller) wants to redefine WP even though many treaties on the governance of warfare have already decided the issue.
I could go on, but Jeff Goldstein of Protein Wisdom has MUCH MUCH MORE, so I'll stop and let you go read over there. He also manages to get a few good slams on the Sic-Kos, so I gotta link to that, ya know.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 9:33 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Preferences. . .
I liked Pajamas Media better anyway.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 9:30 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Phone it in, Jimmah. . .
Jimmy Carter is supposed to be one of the world's principle figures in the spread and practice of Democracy. As a former U.S. President, Carter's presense on the ground in a national election should foster transparent democratic processes and represent a committment to democracy within the host nation.
Oh if that were true. . .
Carter's failure to recognize when democracy has been hijacked is coming back to haunt him on his latest book tour with angry Ethiopians protesting the former President for his role in certifying the bogus Ethiopian elections in May of this year.
Publius Pundit provides a bit of background on the protest.
If Carter's going to go around certifying elections before the vote is even counted, why does he even have to go, couldn't he just as easily phone in his support for dictatorships and corrupt regimes?
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 9:22 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
November 18, 2005
Vote Dammitt Vote Dammittt...
Listening to THE VOTE debate. And I say, VOTE DAMMIT VOTE. I want a list of who wants to surender and who doesn't. That way I have a list of who the francophile,cheese eating, surrender monkies are! Then I can help get them voted out of office!
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 9:39 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
November 16, 2005
Harry Reid's Oil Exec Sham. . . .
Democrat Minority Leader Reid wants some of the oil company executives who testified before Congress to return and face more questioning under oath.
While on the surface this may seem like a good idea, especially after the temper tantrum the Democrats threw when the executives weren't required to testify under oath the first time.
So let’s think about that for a second. Now supposedly the first testimony was to be in order to investigate why gas prices ran up following hurricanes that devastated the Gulf Coast region of the United States, shut down oil refineries (destroyed some) and forced the industry to shut down production and shipments, twice, once for Katrina and once for Rita. Congress also wanted to know about record profits recorded in that same quarter.
Now it's important to note that these "record" profits represented a margin of less than 10% FOR THOSE THAT ACTUALLY MADE A PROFIT. Not all oil companies made a profit however, Plains Exploration and Production lost 31.8 million, Endeavor International lost 14.5 million, Abraxas lost 3.3 million. Congress isn't calling the companies who lost money to testify, only those that made money. Again, keep in mind that these companies' profit margins were less than 10%. While it's true that the larger, more diversified companies who could draw from areas unaffected by hurricanes made money; many other oil companies lost money. In essence, the money was there to be made, it just got concentrated to those companies who had the infrastructure to keep it flowing, that's not a crime; it's a demonstration that the capitalist model works to provide supply to meet demands.
So I guess it's shady and borderline illegal to make less than 10% profit on your goods and services in America now, so borderline illegal that you may be called before Congress. Nevermind that many of these companies making money NOW because they invested capital to whether "the storm(s)" lost money last year.
I wonder Reid going to call Google executives before Congress for their 20% plus profit margin last year and who's profit margin topped 14% in the 3rd quarter. Are we now going to see other companies called to the carpet when they make money? Is it a crime to make money in America now? Or is it just that you made money AND you're an oil company?
Ok, Ok, I'm inflating the issue a bit, but not really that much. Not nearly as much as Reid and the Democrats are inflating the issue. Reid and the Democrats want to draw blood, they don't care from whom, they just need to demonize and attack someone in front of the cameras, because that's all they have left. No plans for the future, no suggestions to end foreign oil dependency, no plans for the nation in general. It's simply cry-baby cry; demonize America and everything American for the Democrats of late. Capitalism is a part of America, the oil companies are part of capitalist America, but the Democrats feel that capitalism is evil and those who practice it are evil (well, to be honest, they only think it's evil when they can attach it to the Republicans, and the oil companies are generally considered to be a Republican domain ---- unless you happen to look at Michael Moore's stock portfolio or Barbara Streisand's driveway).
There's a reason that the oil executives weren't put under oath when they were called to justify their 3rd quarter profits, and I'll tell you what it is. Quarterly Reports are ESTIMATES, they aren't facts, they have some facts in them, but they aren't facts in and of themselves. Quarterly Reports are an indication of where the company is heading in a period, what major events took place, what changes in strategy are being made and what the balance sheet appears to look like at the time. Had the Democrats had their way and sworn in the CEO's of the oil companies that made less than 10% profit, very few questions could have been answered by the executives. Simply put, you can't testify to something you don't know for certain, you can't testify under oath on possibilities and estimates, and you can't testify with a weeks worth of notice on business financials covering trillions of dollars, spanning the globe in a myriad of nations and involving thousands (even tens of thousands) of accountants. Testimony on such things takes weeks, even months to prepare, and that's AFTER the annual report is signed sealed and delivered to the stockholders. Until the annual report is done, all the year's incomes and expenses are tabulated, taxes paid and interest collected, the TRUE and ACCURATE financial picture of a company is unclear.
Furthermore, the Congress wants the oil executives to testify about a process they are only a small part of. The oil companies aren't the end all, be all, omnipotent gods of the energy universe. Nationwide gasoline prices are NOT SET BY EXXON EXECUTIVES, there are thousands, even millions of middlemen the world over who speculate, manipulate, horde, dump, find, trade, buy and sell oil, gasoline, natural gas, plastics and manage delivery networks at the local, regional, national and international level. All have a function in the price of gas at the pump. All have a small cumulative effect on the market that rises and falls responding to all manner of natural and man-made events, some real, some imaginary and some manufactured out of whole cloth. Not to mention inflammatory and downright scary reporting by "news" reporters who know next to nothing about free market commodities trading and also bombastic irresponsible speeches by moronic Democrat leadership.
Putting the oil execs under oath last week would have led to a series of "I cannot answer that at this time", or "that's simply information I do not have at my disposal" responses. Nothing would have been gained from the hearings if you put these execs under oath with a week's preparation, the entire notion is nothing but preposterous. However, if you want to talk freely about and actually understand how the oil markets and companies work, if you want to know what the thought process was for the oil companies during the run up and immediate aftermath of the hurricanes and how they prepared for the market disruptions, then surely, call them in for a friendly and productive session where honest questions can get honest answers.
I suspect that if Crybaby in Chief Reid gets his way and brings the oil execs back, and then swears them in under oath, we'll see an army of high priced lawyers come along with them. We'll see hundreds of mid-level execs and high-level analysts tag along for the ride too. The "event" will cost the American taxpayer and the American consumer of petro-products millions of dollars to prepare for a sham hearing seeking testimony that simply can't be given on events that are still in flux or completely beyond the control of the oil companies.
But the Dems will have their opportunity to grandstand, badger, attack and bemoan the executives for the cameras. We'll have high-profile Dems bitch and moan about the "evil oil companies" acting all "corporation-y". How dare they make less than a 10% profit on trillions of dollars worth of investment. How dare they make a less than 10% return for their stockholders (damn right, I want my oil stock returns to be 15%, and so does Michael Moore, in fact I want my oil stocks to perform like Google stock!!!).
Newsflash for Harry Reid, it's not a crime in any way shape or form for a company to make less than 10% profit. In fact, companies that make less than 10% profit are considered to "less than attractive" to investors because they aren't making enough. One can make more in the bond and real estate markets. I don't see Reid calling the Chief execs of RE/Max to testify.
If by some chance, the Oil Execs do make it to Congress and are forced to testify under oath about a crime that doesn't exist, and then please, by all means, let them testify, and let’s make sure that good Republicans take the time to ask the right questions.
Let’s make sure they ask:
"Why haven't any refineries been built in the U.S. in the last 20 years to meet increased demands?"
----Because the enviro-whackos won't let them
"Why has the price of a barrel of oil skyrocketed?"
----Because the Enron traders are out there working privately now to run the price of oil up.
----Because the market is dependent on foreign potentates who set quotas and prices arbitrarily
"Why is the price of gas at the pump so high?"
----Because governments look at gas taxes as a cash cow and have been steadily influencing the market upwards by taxing fuel at every opportunity.
----Because our means of refining, extracting and delivering gas and oil has been hampered by natural events beyond the control of the oil companies
(BEFORE SOME IDIOT COMES IN HERE AND SCREAMS THAT GLOBAL WARMING WAS CAUSED BY THE OIL COMPANIES, REMEMBER THIS, THE GREENLAND ICE CAP IS THICKENING YOU MORON, GLOBAL WARMING IS JUNK SCIENCE, A MYTH, OR AT WORST, A COMPLETELY NATURAL CYCLE AND WE'RE DUE FOR ANOTHER ICE AGE SO GET YOURSELF SOME PROPANE HEATERS)
There are a thousand and one questions I'd like to see asked that the execs for Exxon and the other biggies can answer honestly and truthfully to explain in real terms to the American public what the real reasons are that make prices at the pump so high (or so low by European standards, and we know how perfect the Euro society is, right?). So IF the oil execs are brought back, let Reid and the others make their bombastic threats, wild proclamations and lament for the cameras, and let the oil execs calmly and politely tell them that the 3rd Quarter figures are an estimate of income and that no specific information can be delivered until the year is over and a full accounting is done.
Then let the Republicans hammer home the need for new refineries in the U.S., let's hammer home that ANWR and the coasts need to be opened to drilling to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and let American traders use the might of OUR RESERVES to force the global price per barrel down. Let's spread our petro-chemical industry across the entire gulf-coast and open up new terminals on the east and west coasts so we're not dependent on the Port of New Orleans for a majority of our oil supply. Let's have some testimony that isn't just grandstanding for cameras and Democrats barking "SEE SEE they won't answer!" "SEE, Look at the evil corporations, acting all corporation-y."
Finally, BY ALL MEANS, let's drag Google into Congress and make them testify about their proprietary technology that they are making 20+% on when those evil oil companies with all their power and influence are only making LESS THAN 10%.
Before I finish, lemme just say that Reid is also trying to frame the Oil Exec Testimony around meetings with Vice President Cheney to discuss Energy Policy. This is a non-starter of the greatest degree. Firstly, you're getting into executive privilege here, and it should not be tolerated. Second, if you're gonna have discussions about Energy Policy, it's a good idea to get the guys WHO ACTUALLY MAKE THE ENERGY in a room and get some real work done without having to turn the whole thing into a parade.
I want everyone to realize, and I'm sure most of you do, that this is just one in a series of dog and pony shows by Reid to try and smear the administration by forcing a bunch of people under oath to testify about things that they legally and accurately cannot. Reid knows this, the media knows this, but he's going to put on his show anyway, and the media will report it as evil corporations in collusion with the evil Republicans to make an evil profit.
Ironically, Reid is doing this so the Dems can increase fundraising (make money) and the media is doing this to increase viewer ship and ad revenue (to make money). Making money is evil if you're Republican, but perfectly all right if you're a Democrat or Leftist (Michael Moore owns stock in Halliburton). Ten percent (or less) is too much profit if you're an oil company, but twenty percent plus is perfectly alright if you're an internet company.
Here's what will come from these hearings, if they ever happen, more legislation (leading to higher prices at the pump), more lawyers charging exorbitant fees (leading to higher prices at the pump) and a downswing in oil company stock (leading to less money for the American public, WHO ARE THE ACTUAL OWNERS OF THE PUBLICALLY TRADED OIL COMPANIES)
Way to go Harry, you dumbass!
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 8:45 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
You be the judge. . .
Click your way to the truth.
h/t - Michelle Malkin
Go and check for yourself, and if you want to continue with the "Bush Lied" meme after you examine the evidence, I expect that you will also have to admit that "Clinton Lied" too.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 9:38 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
This is a test. . . this is only a test
Of Google Maps
But it doesn't seem to be working.
--Jason
UPDATE: I guess I should have been more specific, it's the Movable Type plugin "MTGoogleMaps" that isn't working. I'll keep trying to figure it out tho.
Posted by JasonColeman at 12:12 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
November 14, 2005
I mentioned this briefly before. . .
But since I'm about to go work on the techie stuff behind the blog, I've got "blog-things" on the brain. So lemme point your to Aaron's Deck o' Bloggers. Just a fun little project to play on the Iraqi Most Wanted playing cards and have a bit of fun with the bloggin community.
So why am I mentioning this again? Well two reasons. Firstly, because I want you to go here and VOTE FOR "SondraK"! That's right, go here and VOTE FOR SondraK! Why should you vote for SondraK? Well, in a word, her blog rocks and it's a great source of stuff to make you laugh, cry, get mad or get happy. All the things a blog is supposed to be and really none of what this blog is all about.
So go here and "Vote for SondraK"
NOTE: Voting takes place in the left hand sidebar. So go VOTE FOR SONDRAK.
The second reason I'm mentioning this is I just want to raise awareness a bit about the project and hope that someone nominates me for one of the Diamond cards, and of course then hopefully I'll get enough votes for a Two, Three or Four of Diamonds. If that fails, then one of the low Spade cards. See, I'm not asking for all that much, it's not like I'm asking to be the King of Hearts or Jack of Diamonds, I'll take one of the low number cards and be more than happy. If I were a Democrat I'd be offering to buy your votes, but I'm not so I won't.
That's it. Enough shameless pluggin' for myself and others. Now it's time to go see what kind of funky plug-ins I can get working on this blog.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 6:35 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
What do you think. . .
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No. The – I mean, this question is asked a thousand times and I'll be happy to answer it a thousand times. I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq – that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11.
The above statement seems to me to be TREASON, flat out, unequivocal TREASON. Bashar Assad was the "head of state" of Syria and Syria at the time was listed as a state sponsor of terrorism. By essentially telling a foreign "head of state" and sponsor of terrorism that the United States was planning for war and discussing the the "shape" of the course the United States was heading for seems to be straight out TREASON to me. (H/T to Captain Ed who beat me to the Treason punch. I need to blog on Sunday more.)
Senator Rockefeller should be investigated with regard to what exactly he told Bashar Assad in his visit. Did Senator Rockefeller compromise classified information he received via his position on the Senate Intelligence Committee in his discussion of the "course" the U.S. was taking after 9.11? Did Rockefeller explicitly warn Syria that the U.S. was planning military action against Saddam Hussein?
Floppin' Aces has more of the transcript from Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, as does Powerline, but this snippet is MOST TELLING:
WALLACE: But you voted, sir, and aren’t you responsible for your vote?SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No.
Now what I wanna know is, "Does Senator Rockefeller feel responsible for keeping secrets and information he learns in the course of his duty on the Senate Intelligence Committee from falling into enemy hands?" The links between Saddam Hussein and Syria's leadership have never been in question, telling Syria that the U.S. is contemplating war with Iraq is just like telling Saddam himself to "get ready to duck." Telegraphing, hell, blatently admitting that we're planning to remove Saddam with force can almost certainly be considered an impetus for Saddam to begin dismantling and hiding any material or transferring such material to other State Sponsors of Terrorism, like Syria.
Captain's Quarters, Sophistpundit, The Scriptorium and Mark A Kilmer have more on the possible TREASON and definate stupidity of Senator Rockefeller.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 4:47 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
November 12, 2005
Bird flu jumps to pigs. . .this is NOT good news
Reports from China are confirming that pigs have now died as a result of "bird flu". This is about the worst possible news we could get regarding what could possibly develop into the world's next pandemic. A pigs genetic makeup is a step closer to human genetics and while this isn't cause to panic yet, it's certainly a very disturbing development. The next question to be answered would have to be "did the pigs contract the disease simultaneously from the same source, or did one pig develop the disease and spread it to others?"
Short of human to human transmission, this is about one of the worst developments we could see with regard to bird flu.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 8:33 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Here's an interesting development in France. . .
Two Molotov cocktails were tossed at a mosque Friday evening in the southern town of Carpentras, but it was not immediately clear whether the attack was linked to the unrest that has wracked the poor suburbs and small towns of France since Oct. 27. President Jacques Chirac demanded that investigators quickly find out who was behind the attack.
When I first read this, my thoughts centered around "Hmmm, looks like some Frenchie's fighting back against the violence that's sweeping their nation by dishing a little back." After all it's only a matter of time before the general public gets fed up with the violence and the government's seeming lack of ability to deal with it.
After reading it again, I was struck by the "demand" from President Chirac. Ok, so I get it. When these "youths" burn down police stations, drag handicapped women from a bus and set her on fire, drag a man trying to put out a fire into the street and beat him to death, or burn thousands of businesses and cars, the French President urgest restraint and understanding. When the "youths" spread to other cities and even nations, Chirac offers bribes and appeasment.
BUT WAIT, when Frenchmen who have gotten fed up with the entire situation toss a couple of molotov cocktails at a Mosque, there are DEMANDS for immediate investigation.
It's this very double standard that put Chirac and France in this situation.
I'll stop now and let you draw your own conclusions.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 8:13 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
November 10, 2005
You may have noticed. . .
Iraqi Kurdistan has a new public affairs campaign to:
A) Say "Thank You" to the United States for liberating them from the tyrannical regime of Saddam Hussein who used poison gas on Kurdish villages, relocated then murdered over 180,000 Kurdish citizens (in just one campaign, not related to the gassings), destroyed 4,000 Kurdish villages and generally conducted a campaign of ethnic cleansiing upon the Kurds for over 30 years.
B) To educate the world about Iraqi Kurdistan, Kurdish History and the Kurdish people in general.
C) To demonstrate that Iraqi Kurdistan has been a practicing Democracy for 10 years, protected by the U.S. even while under Saddam's heel.
D) Is safe, secure and growing economically since the Liberation of Iraq
and finally
E) To encourage foreign investment and tourism into the region of Iraqi Kurdistan by demonstrating the tolerance of the Iraqi Kurds in terms of ethnicity, nationality and religion. The campaign also emphasizes the free market economy developing in the region, the potential for investment, imports and exports and the significant natural resources and food production capability of the region.
The campaign is centered around three television commericals directing the viewer to their website "Kurdistan: The Other Iraq", which is quite comprehensive and informative on topics relevant to the region. Of particular note are three videos which tell the story of Iraqi Kurdistan ending with an appeal to investors.
Well worth your time to view the videos(each about 10 minutes long) and visit the site.
Chapter 1: Who are the Kurds
Chapter 2: Relationship with the West
Chapter 3: Economic Environment
There is SO SO SO much more going on within Iraq than we're delivered by the Mass Media, great strides for freedom and democracy have been made and progress in the region has actually been phenomenal. Sure there are problems, and there will be problems for some time in that region of the world, but rebuilding nations and fostering democracy takes time, to think that these things can happen overnight is just dishonest (after all, we're still in Germany, Japan and Korea, because they WANT and need us there, not because we're occupiers, but because we are partners in democracy).
You'd be well served to visit Kurdistan: The Other Iraq, yes it's a PR campaign, but it's a pretty honest one that not only pumps up the positives, but recognizes the difficulties of the past and present while trying to present a positive picture of what Iraqi Kurdistan hopes and desires their region of the world to become. Hopefully Iraqi Kurdistan can become a model for future democracies in the Greater Middle East.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 8:40 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Happy Birthday
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 8:10 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
November 9, 2005
Donnie is Blogging. . .
I don't have many good things to say about Democrats, generally I think that most of them are barking up the wrong tree and trying to reach for the far left fence when they should be looking toward the center.
There is one that I respect though. One that hasn't drunk ALL of the Kool-Aid and still thinks for himself. You probably won't guess who it is (unless you're a long-time reader here), so I'll have to tell you. It's Donnie Fowler, who gave Howard Dean a run for his money for the Chair of the DNC.
Of all the possible Democrat players out there Donnie scares me the most as a Republican because he's "acceptable" (which should not be considered an insult in any way shape or form).
Anyhoo, Donnie is pseudo-blogging at HuffPo (yes, I have to admit I check out HuffPo once a week to look at the insanity that's promoted as "mainstream" over there, plus it regularly yields a chuckle or two).
While I regret having to link to the HuffPo, I gotta give props to Donnie, and if you're an objective Republican you should follow Donnie's career. He's got a future in the Democrat party unless we can steal him away (given his father, that's doubtful, but we can hope he'll reject the "opposition politics" which seems to be the last card left in the Dem's deck).
Speaking of Decks, this is a fun little project, and even though no one nominated me for a card (which I wouldn't deserve yet anyway, I'm still a baby-blogger) it's worth checking out to find more bloggers with which you can expand your daily reading base.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 10:48 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Finally. . .
Whoever had me in their address book and was infected with the Mytob worm seems to have finally gotten the bug out of their system. At it's peak, I was receiving about 300 emails a day with Mytob worms attached. I'm pretty good about keeping my virus detection software up to date and actually have a two machine double layer filter for virsuses, so there was never any real risk to me, but it was annoying when my daily email load jumped dramatically and hiccuped with each infected message.
So whoever you were, glad you got it cleaned up.
For the rest of you? When was the last time you scanned for viruses?
One of the worst things about having your own domain is the number of viruses and the amount of spam it attracts, not to mention getting mail that's supposed to go to the .net and .org guys and having to reply back "I think you want one of the .net or .org guys". I guess you gotta take the good with the bad though.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 10:36 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
In case you were wondering. . . .Islam's Not for Me
Here's reason number 376383472 that:
Islam's Not for Me
IF, the copy above doesn't work, OR, you want to be really nice and save me some bandwidth, please click the player below and listen to the song via InfidelsRock.com (I've asked and they say it's OK.)
Here's the lyrics so you can sing along:
They try to tell me my religion is wrong
They try to tell me to follow Islam
They said their prophet was a righteous dude
But I found out none of their words were true
I read the Quran and I read the Hadith
And the sickness of Muhammad was apparent to me
He justified perversion in the name of Allah
When he married a girl too young for a bra
She was playing with dolls when the prophet came
Her childhood was stolen in Allah’s name
Aisha was nine when he took her to bed
Don’t tell me that fool’s not sick in the head
Ain’t gonna follow no child molester, sex offender, prophet pretender.
Aint gonna follow no child molester
Islam's not for me.
Islam's not for me.
The sickness of the Islamic mind
Has caused the Mullahs to be blind
To justify their prophet they would justify sin
So the sins of the prophet are repeated again
All over the world in Islamic states
9 year old girls suffer cruel fate
Sold into marriage to twisted men
And Aisha’s sad story is repeated again
Ain’t gonna follow no child molester, sex offender, prophet pretender.
Aint gonna follow no child molester,
Islam's not for me.
Islam's not for me.
Do you care about women all over the world?
Do you care about those little girls?
Then stand up and fight for human rights
Speak out against the laws of Islam
Ain’t gonna follow no child molester, sex offender, prophet pretender.
Aint gonna follow no child molester,
Islam's not for me.
Islam's not for me.
Islam's not for me.
Of course, in case you didn't know what my #1 reason was. . . I'm an atheist.
--Jason
UPDATE: I included this in The Political Teen's Open Trackback Thursday as well as the midweek trackback fest from Stop the ACLU and GM's Corner.
UPDATE 2: Help keep this clip on the internet! You may or may not know that services like YouTube! and Google Video have been pressured often to remove "objectionable" content from their services. While sites like the Internet Archive and their "Wayback Machine" have done wonders for archiving content on the web, when it comes to file resources like this, it comes to individuals to keep the file alive as blogs come and go, personal sites get abandoned and more. I want to keep this site active and keep this file alive, but that requires purchasing bandwidth, so I've included Amazon ads into this page in the hopes that some of you might consider starting one of your Amazon searches here and support the site and the cost to keep this file alive. Just thought I should mention why I added the ads to the original post.
-JC
Posted by JasonColeman at 12:50 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
November 8, 2005
Ok, listen up. . .
Thanks for stopping by, but I don't want your traffic today, so I'm sending you someplace else. It's not because I don't want you to read my stuff, but there's something else I want you to read. So grab yourself a cup of coffee, make sure you're comfortable. . . .
Ok?. . .?. . . ?. . .? Good.
Now, head over to VodkaPundit (which has been on my blogroll since day 3) and read Stephen Green's piece entitled The Arm of Decision. Come back later if you want, but if you only read one thing from the blogosphere today, this should be it.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 9:23 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
November 7, 2005
Please let this be the end of "Frenchie" France. . .
The unrest in France is becoming ridiculous to say the least. The assertions that the violence is coming from "youths" rather than characterizing the rioters for what they are is an insult to France's citizens and the world at large.
There is a large "North African and Arab" component to the rioting.
There is a large "Muslim" component to the rioting.
There is a large "Hooligan" component to the rioting.
The first death from the rioting appears to be a 61 year old man, who left the security of his home to put out fires burning outside. He was beaten to death by a MOB OF NORTH AFRICAN AND ARAB MUSLIM HOOLIGANS. The French police respond with "understanding" the French Government respons with "appeasment". This is insane, insane, insane.
In their attempt to cover up the failures of their socio-economic system, France is prolonging the inevitable, and leaving the majority of decent French citizens at the mercy of a minority set upon creating social and economic chaos which is becoming more and more evident to be another example of Muslim Extremism masquerading as "youthful transgresion".
This is just BULLSHIT, give up the charade Frenchies, get out there and restore order, fight back for those who you're supposed to protect (your citizens), arrest the hooligans and stop the violence. Stop kow-towing to the Imams and Muslim leaders who have no desire to stop the violence, this is a Muslim Revolt, in the middle of Europe; deal with your dirty laundry and restore order as a government should for the safety and stability of your citizens and your region of responsibility in the world.
I could rant on and on about France's public characterization of New Orleans, their constant assertions that their social welfare model is the best (despite a failing economy, rampant unemployment, and a citizenry increasingly unable to care for themselves) or the supposed superiority of French culture, but it's just pointless right now. The French have failed their people, they've failed in their basic duty to provide for the safety and security of people and property in a modern nation, and they're dancing around the issue trying to find a way to appease the offenders, AGAIN. Have they learned NOTHING from all their failed attempts to appease those who would do them harm, WAKE UP FRANCE, appeasement does not work.
If you've been living under a rock, or just want to know more about what's happening over there, here are the links I'm using to TRY to understand the extent to which France has failed:
Map of the Riots
Boi From Troy [1] [2] [3]
So, Is it a clash of civilizations?
Michael Totten weighs in
Transterrestial Musing examines the "appeasement"
Captain Ed points out the warnings
Johnathan Gewirtz points out the Intifada connections
AND OF COURSE, if you want to know what's going on in Europe, you have to visit !No Parasan!. No specific link, just go there and keep reading and scrolling.
The Belmont Club is also doing EXTRAORDINARY WORK (as always) to analyze and put things into perspective.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 11:04 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
November 6, 2005
Making the rounds again. . .
I've noticed that the British Military spoof-video "The Way to Amarillo" is making the rounds on the "internets" today, so I just thought I'd throw it up too along with the rest of my "Real American Idol" series.
The Brits give us "The Way to Amarillo".
The Norweigan's give us "Kosovo".
The U.S. Navy chimes in with "Wazzup".
Then of course there's always "4th of the 25th" which isn't a "spoof-video" but rather a full fledged album.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 11:35 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
November 5, 2005
Just some random thoughts. . .
So I was sitting here thinking about Harry Reid’s latest stunt, which has pretty much been branded by everyone concerned with such things as a pretty silly and stupid move prone to backfire on him and the Dems in general, when a new series of thoughts emerged about what this would mean for "Scooter" Libby.
Now I'm not a lawyer, and I don't pretend to be, but it seems to me that when Harry Reid, the Senate Democrat leader gets up to the micro-phone and starts saying:
"The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really about: how the Administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions."
And when Fitzgerald, who actually brought forth the indictment, says:
"This indictment is not about the war. This indictment's not about the propriety of the war. And people who believe fervently in the war effort, people who oppose it, people who have mixed feelings about it should not look to this indictment for any resolution of how they feel or any vindication of how they feel. ... The indictment will not seek to prove that the war was justified or unjustified. This is stripped of that debate, and this is focused on a narrow transaction. And I think anyone who's concerned about the war and has feelings for or against shouldn't look to this criminal process for any answers or resolution of that."
All of this seems like a positive development for Libby. I'm sure it can be argued that by bringing the Libby indictment to the floor of the Senate, and to the front of the national stage, and then blatantly and grossly mischaracterizing the nature and focus of the indictment, Reid has done serious damage to the Libby's chances for a fair trial.
It's generally accepted that when an indictment is handed down or when an investigation is underway, politicians become very careful about how they speak of it. I have to qualify that, RESPONSIBLE POLITICIANS become very careful in such situations. Those merely trying to make political hay seem to totally disregard the "innocent until proven" guilty theory of law in the United States.
I'd suggest that there's a good case to be made for dismissal of the Libby indictment based on Harry Reid’s remarks on the Senate floor, or at the very least that Reid's comments open the door for Reid himself to be subpoenaed to testify.
Reid used his Senate speech to convict Libby in the court of public opinion; he's tainted the jury pool and interfered with an ongoing investigation and prosecution of an indictment. These irresponsible actions by Reid reached a widespread audience and did serious damage to Libby's case, or perhaps they actually strengthen Libby's defense that this is mere political trickery at work to try and take one indictment and characterize it to the public as something different.
I'm not sure how this will all play out, but my gut tells me that Reid is going to lose and lose bad; AGAIN with this latest stunt and that Libby will make significant gains in his defense by Reid’s reckless and inaccurate remarks. We'll see but in general, Reid's tantrum seems to be more and more a mistake with each passing day.
I understand that Reid wanted to put the Libby indictment back on the front page, and he did that, but in doing so he's opened Pandora’s Box again and those things never turn out well for those that open it. So lets rehash pre-war intelligence, lets get the Clinton White House statements on Saddam, Iraq and WMD back out into the open, lets put Kerry's and Reid's and Clinton's statements from 1998 and 1999 and 2000 back on the front page. Let's expose the Clinton CIA and their failures, but let’s also start talking again about what we actually did find. Let's talk about the thousands of liters of bacillus anthracis, let's talk about the 480 odd tons of yellowcake uranium lets talk about the 1.8 tons of low enriched uranium, lets talk about Sarin and mustard gas and most importantly lets talk about the fact that even Saddam Hussein himself believed that he had weapons of mass destruction at his disposal. And if anyone believes that THESE were to be used for legitimate purposes, I've got a bridge to sell you.
I can understand how the media didn't want to take up the task of explaining to the American public what thousands of liters of bacillus anthracis actually was and how easily a terrorist or even a rogue regime could use such products as weapons. I can almost understand why the media didn't make much hay over the 480 tons of yellowcake Saddam did have, and why exactly was he converting that yellowcake into low enriched uranium and why did he order his nuclear specialists to dismantle and bury centrifuges and plans for their use. These stories are not prone to easy sound bite parsing and their discovery would lead to a premise that invading Iraq was the right thing to do, which is not part of the media's agenda.
So let’s put Harry Reid's issue on the table, let’s look hard at what the Clinton and Bush era CIA told us, but let’s also look hard at what we actually did find and are continuing to find everyday.
Yes, I'm almost certain that Reid's tantrum is a net loss for his side of the aisle, and will only strengthen in the minds of the American public that not only was it the Law of the United States (signed by Bill Clinton) to remove Saddam, but that everything in the Iraq War Resolution was in fact justified and verified.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at 2:19 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
November 2, 2005
A response. . .
The following comment was made to this post regarding the nomination of Samuel Alito. The commenter remains anonymous, and I allow such comments, so that's ok. If the commenter would have included a valid email I'd be happy to make my response in private, but since they did not, it's gonna have to be public.
So, here we go. . .
Planned Parenthood is one of this country's largest organizations to supply women with various methods of birth control (condoms, the Pill, etc), reproductive education, and let's not forget gynecological services, all on a sliding payment scale. They don't tell women to have abortions, they present it as an option non-judgmentally along with everything else. I understand that you'll never have had reason to use any of their services, but please try to educate yourself about what they do for the sakes of those of us who rely on them for our pills.
Well, all those pre-pregnancy services you mention weren't the issue were they. Only the "options" after a pregnancy has begun is the topic we're discussing on the national stage and in my post. The commenter claims that Planned Parenthood presents abortion as an "option", well, I'm sorry commenter, but in order to present an "option" you have to have more than one. Planned Parenthood has gone to great lengths and spent millions to fight any attempt to bring the "option" of adoption into their clinics. Planned Parenthood does not present the "option" of adoption to those that visit their clinics, do they?
As for spousal notification, no. Sorry. Your terror imagery has been the reality for too many women I've known. With two exceptions, the married women I've known who have had abortions did so because they *were* escaping abusive husbands (they also had other children who were escaping with them) and spousal rape, while common, is next to impossible to prove in court. In the case of the exceptions, one was therapeutic (the child would have been born without several major organs) and the other was in fact a joint decision. In a healthy relationship, that's what happens. It's like you believe (and I'm not saying you do, merely that it's the impression you're giving off by your statements) that wives all over are scheming behind their husbands' backs. Because women always lie, you know. Spousal notification carries the terrible implication that while you can always trust a man to make the proper decision for his family, you can't trust the woman to make that exact same decision. And that's creepy.
Well, commenter, the "spousal notification" requirement in question, specifically allows exemption for a woman who fears abuse arising from said "notification". And my point was that we were now going to be barraged with imagery of abusive husbands by anti-Alito activists. Guess what, I was right, the pro-abortion talking heads that are making the rounds in the newsmedia are doing just that, conveniently leaving out that in cases of spousal abuse or fear of such abuse the requirment no longer exists. They, and you, are mischaracterizing the law in question and leaving out those exemptions that are there. They, and you, do this to pretend that there's a risk that is not specifically accounted for. It's dishonest, and only serves to cloud the issue for some groups you mention later.
On to child support. Did you have sex? Okay. That means you're responsible for the consequences. For the woman, that means the following potentials: pregnancy, risk of death, lifetime decrease in her wage-earning ability, increased likelihood of living in poverty, and responsibility for someone for the next eighteen years. She can deal with these by having an abortion, by giving the baby up for adoption, or by choosing to keep and raise the baby. All of these are legal options for her. The man, not being pregnant, does not have the option for an abortion because, let me repeat, he is not pregnant. Only someone who is pregnant can have an abortion. He can choose to stay with the woman and the child and raise a family, or he can choose to leave. Either way, he still has a responsibility to the child he fathered because he fathered a child. If he did not want to father a child, he should hav