Captain Ed has done an excellent job dissecting blithering idiot former General Attorney Ramsey Clark's ...defense... of Saddam Hussein.
Apparently we've been "demonizing" Hussein. This definitely qualifies as a Duranty Report.
Dean has been (rightfully) happy about the great turnout in Iraq today. Of course, he's right that the MSM would find a negative spin. CNN, for example:
President Bush today called Iraq's historic election a "resounding success" as Iraqis "take rightful control of their country's destiny." With polls now closed, Iraqi officials are reporting a higher turnout than expected, despite a spate of attacks and threats aimed at disrupting the vote. At least 25 people were killed and more than 70 wounded in a string of attacks.
First sentance: Bush is happy too.
Second sentance: turnout is "higher than expected." (as opposed to the rumored 70%+ we've seen cited elsewhere)
Third sentance: yep, gotta bring up the terrorists insurgents.
Call it the speed-bump method of spinning the news; each successive sentance is progressively more negative. Also note the complete absence of context, either in the lede or the body linked above.
So instead of reporting that attacks (and casualties) were damn near non-existant, with an excellent turnout, CNN instead quotes Bush, then implies with two down-twists to imply that he's being over-optimistic again.
Feh.
It's Sunday, January 30, 1:00AM Eastern time as I write this. I see from One Hand Clapping that the voting has already started in Iraq. Apparently the first man to vote was Interim President Ghazi Mashal Ajil al-Yawer, a Sunni Muslim. As Don Sensing points out, it would seem that this was choreographed so that Sunnis would be encouraged to vote.
Don includes a link I've seen mentioned elsewhere, and I've been meaning to mention it here: Friends of Democracy. Do not walk, run over there and read (as they say) the whole thing. The people writing there are Iraqi citizens. They aren't "shills" for any US political party, nor are they CIA operatives. They are just men and women who want to make a difference for their country.
For those who are oh-so-blase about the elections, and the odds for success: here's a photo of Mehsin Imgoter absentee voting in Michigan. His son was killed in the 1991 uprising.
If that picture doesn't touch you somehow, there's something wrong with you...
UPDATE: I foolishly forgot to mention the ever-indispensible Command Post for up to the minute blogging as the Iraq election unfolds.
There's some great people out there. Dean, naturally... :)
Then there's Rocket Jones; someone who I really should link to more often, since rockets are da bomb (metaphorically speaking).
Right now I especially want to thank Annika for some linky love, especially since she's of Danish extraction (what can I say, Nordic women are sexy), and she links to cool airplanes (what can I saysquared, Nordic women who link to airplane photos are really really sexy, heh).
I gotta say, MuNuvians really are the nicest people...
I don't know if it's just the local area (maybe I'm lucky enough to be in a test market), but I just got an email from RoadRunner explaining that they just increased the bandwidth to 5Mbps (megabits/second).
So I trotted over to testmy.net; a great place to see just how fast your throughput really is.
I tested out at 4683Kpbs (4.68Mbps)! Another way to measure that is 572 KB/sec (Kilobytes/second).
Or, as the web page says "You are running: 84 times faster than 56K and can download 1 megabyte in 1.79 second(s)."
Yowza!
Thursday, January 27, will mark my first blogiversary. I doubt I'll hit 6,000 visits by then.
But hey, it's been a fun 12 months anyway...
My thanks to those who dropped by, and to those to even commented.
Especial thanks to those who have linked to me, and my BlogDaddy, Dean Esmay.
Here's to the new year!
It seems that John of Arrggg! has become a Mortal Human two days in a row.
I, for one, would like to welcome our new overlord and master...
Heh. Good on ya, John.
I've been enjoying the recent weather here in southwest Ohio; fifty degrees in January is a good thing.
But it was too good to last. I get up Friday morning, shower, and find a message from work (I was due in at 11:00 am): we don't think we'll need you for lunch.
I look outside and see five more inches of bloody snow.
I can't wait for spring.
Was going to add a shot of the front yard, but computer is currently ignoring the USB cable to the camera... :(
Ok. In this post, I accused Michael Demmons of bad reasoning.
Discussions in the comment thread with Michael cleared things up somewhat. He was commenting on which party -if any- was responsible for abortion rates in the US. Thing is, one of the posts upon which he was commenting linked back to Oliver Willis; someone I avoid reading in the same way I avoid "reality" TV and Ben Affleck policitcal commentary. Hence I didn't read the original posts.
I have to admit that "if you had to blame a party, I would blame Republians" (later changed to "social conservatives") is semantically much different from the absolute statement that Republicans (or "social conservatives") are responsible for the abortion rate, etc.
So I retract the vehement tone of my original post, but stand by the facts presented. Said vehemence was due to percieved bad reasoning, not the social position per se.
Yes, boys and girls, that's one of the things that gets Casey fired up: really bad reasoning. Now you know. :)
I forgot to mention a while back that the Smart Cleric -Paul Burgess- went and got hisself a blog of his ver' own!
Worse yet, I didn't update my link so that it pointed to said blog. That's fixed now.
So run on over and give Let the Finder Beware a try; maybe Paul's old Sci-Fi comic book is up your alley. Or perhaps discussions of philsophy a la Camus are your forte. Or maybe you just like hot chicks like Uma Thurmond and her huge hands...
Heh.
It really should say that on some columns. Honestly. Take this one, for example, in which Michael Demmons blames the pregnancy and abortion rates in America on Republicans, although in a later comment he backtracks in order to place the blame more squarely on the "social conservatives."
The mind boggles...
Naturally, I felt compelled to reply. ;)
I'm amazed. Floored. Damn near speechless.
The complete lack of logic in blaming America's abortion rate on "social conservatives" induces a terrible sense of awe in those of use who can actually engage our brains in useful work.
Mr. Demmons, just for starters: you do realize the basic ethos, moral code, and expectations of "social conservatives" were the norm for this country for (oh...) several centuries, yes?
You do realize that -for many, many decades- there wasn't any question of the high rate of abortions in this country, because it was bloody illegal? You are aware of that? And that those laws were based on the "social conservative" ethos. Not to mention those same "social conservative[s]" opposed the legalization of abortion.
Yet somehow, in some odd way, the people who are against abortion the most are the ones getting the blame. Odd, that... One wonders if the author actually thought their way through the proposition, or merely spilled some some dogmatic beliefs into the blogosphere.
Some numbers might be in order. The CDC itself says that abortion rates steadily increased between 1970 and 1984 (you know, when the Democrats controlled the federal government most of the time, and lead prevailing thought regarding the anti-war movement, women's rights, gay rights, and so on.
After 1984, the rate has steadily decreased, while Republicans (one certainly tends to equate "social conservatives" with the GOP), falling from 364/1,000 in 1984 to 311 in 1995, and down to 246 in 2000. In other words, when the social conservatives steadily gained ground in Washington, D.C. and the national culture became more conservative, the rate of abortion decreased.
An examination of the tables by state show that generally the highest abortion rates are in areas that are strongly Democratic, such as New York (30/1,000), District of Columbia (25), Washington (20), New Jersey (18), and Oregon (18). Alabama stands at 12, Oklahoma at 10, and Idaho a paltry 6. Yet it's still the fault of those darned "social conservatives!"
Several folks have compared the abortion rate in America to Amsterdam, accompanied by a corresponding sneer. Yes, and the murder rate in Nazi Germany was lower than that in the United States. I suppose that means the National Socialists developed a less violent culture in 1930s Germany...
If you look carefully, you'll see that the CDC has managed to confuse things by only differentiating by race (white and black/other) in one table, and by "ethnicity" (hispanic and non/hispanic) in another table.
This obscures the fact that abortion rates are much, much higher for both hispanic and black women, compared to white, non/hispanic women.
So maybe all those morally superior, condescending ...people... comparing the abortion rate in America to Amsterdam should examine those groups and locations with very high rates, and attempt an effective generalization on just why said rates are so high.
Damned inconvenient things, facts. They really should be used more often.
The Dynamic Duo, Rosemary and Dean are even now having their second baby.
Since they cheated, they already knew it's a boy, and they've named him Draco Malfoy Esmay.
Ok. Just joshing. His real name is Drake. ;)
Godspeed, you two, and let's send our prayers out for them.
Don Sensing links to a story about the man who said "No."
Stanislov Petrov was in charge of the Soviet Union's DEW system on September 26, 1983. Soviet pilots had just shot down KAL 007 three and a half weeks earlier.
Just after midnight the Oko ("eye") satellite array indicated a launch of five Minuteman II missles from Montana. Petrov had just a few minutes to warn the Soviet leaders who had to decide on a response, but something felt wrong to Lieutenant Colonel. Why only five?
So he told those leaders it was a false alarm: "I imagined if I’d assume the responsibility for unleashing the third World War — and I said, no, I wouldn’t.”
Dean Esmay recently linked to this article by Michelle Malkin, about some of the issues that minority conservatives uniquely have deal with, as conservatives.
Some of the comments at Dean's World display a remarkable lack of sympathy for Ms. Malkin, including the observation that
freedom also includes the right to not be locked up in a cage simply because you belong to a certain race. That's something Malkin doesn't understand.not to mention the discussion of Ms. Malkin's "narcissistic rambling." apparently "supposed to make liberals look bad."
My reaction started life as a response in that thread, but I decided to put it up here as well.
Well, you can see how open-minded those two are; even suggesting the possibility that the FDR administration might have had some non-racial motivations inspires vicious scorn.
Some specifics: Mr. Knapp displays a significant historical deficiency (or, perhaps, a reading problem); no one was "locked in a cage" soley due to race. Alex, if you honestly think that's what happened, please read some factual history before exposing your ignorance in public again.
The displaced Japanese-Americans were on the west coast, in near proximity to the major ports supporting the Pacific War. One of the motivations involved was concern about providing easy access for Japanese (or Japanese-American) saboteurs. Another concern was that many young men (even born in the US) still looked to Japan as their primary loyalty. Many, when asked to swear exclusive loyalty to the US (re: "question 27 & 28") refused to do so.. Also note that Imperial Japan was fairly liberal in funding political parties in America who might look upon them with favor, later. Some of the parties recieving such funds are still classified to this day, because those revelations could kick up a serious ruckus, even now.
Yet another point was that no one was "locked up;" the camps were to provide housing for the detainees until they could find more permanent residences. They were free to leave the camps. Alas, it didn't happen that way.
Please note that Italian-Americans and German-Americans were also on the recieving end of significant abuses during World War 1 and World War 2; some of it worse than anything done to the Japanese-Americans.
My own belief is that while the administration might have had good arguments for moving at least some people from the west coast, the actual implementation was so broad, and heavy-handed that serious injustices occured. For example, those who owned property would -in theory- be fairly compensated. This did not occur. Another failing point was the utter lack of discrimination (in the alternate sense): everyone had to leave.
The housing situation was a similar pooch-screw. Terrible, cheap housing which took no consideration for the culture of the internees. Even the nisei weren't as assimilated to the same degree 2nd-generation immigrants would be today. One example would be the lack of privacy for personal hygiene. On the other hand, calling relocation areas "concentration camps" cheapens the terms' actual meaning, not to mention blurring the very significant differences between the two systems. This is similar to the current habit of labelling even mild treatments such as sleep deprivation as "torture."
In summary, the treatment of Japanese-Americans was, in fact, a terrible injustice which was barely recognized by the later court-ordered compensation. What many people fail to see is that the relocation was not just rabid racism, even though that was certainly present.
Too many people -correspondents Knapp and Vogel in evidence- insist on portraying relocation as study in black and white, with no grey involved. Their position puts them, oddly enough, on the "good" side. Pleasant coincidence, that. Convenient, too.
As for Mr. Vogel's claim of "narcissistic rambling," he reads Malkin neither thouroughly nor well. The point of that article was that certain types (again, one is tempted to point to Mssrs Knapp and Vogel) would use that scandal as a brush to tar all minority conservaties. She merely cited specifics from her personal experience relating to "liberals" who disagreed with her in an especially vulgar way.
Mr. Vogel seems to be deliberately ignoring the way liberal commentators, cartoonists, and public figures (Harry Belafonte, for example) have vilified black conservative Americans. The editorial cartoons about Condolezza Rice are particularly offensive, but (hey!) these are liberals we're talking about. Everyone knows liberals are always kind, considerate, and respectful of others' opinions, and never, ever descend to race-baiting. And yes, I'm being sarcastic.
There's a lot of racist liberals out there. The difference is that racist conservatives are (justly) called out on their bad habits while the racist liberals are (usually) ignored. I cite in evidence the above-mentioned Belafonte, the wide variety of vulgar cartoons re: Ms. Rice, and catty comments ("skeeza" Condolezza, etc) regarding same. I can see why people such as Ms. Malkin hold a jaundiced view this hypocrisy.
Conservatives are more forthcoming about "their" bigotry these days, as evidenced by the Trent Lott fiasco. The left would do well to pursue the racists in their own ranks as vigorously.
And, if Mr. Vogel had read Malkin more regularly, he would have seen her column with a compare & contrast between her and Margaret Cho. Both are women; both Asian-American, both outspoken, and so on. The difference, of course, is that Cho is definitely liberal while Malkin is definitely conservative. In fact Ms. Malkin expresses some sympathy for Cho, since they both no doubt are on the recieving end of many of the same bigoted insults.
Another difference is that Michelle Malkin is -as a conservative- regularly pilloried as a "race traitor" and is reminded that she "isn't white." Only minority conservatives face this particular burden. Since when have Cho or (say) Russell Simmons been branded "race traitors," or (in Simmons' case) "not really black?"
That, my friends, is the point.
Ahhh. I hate the holidays. I hate them cubed when I have the flu for several weeks.
Feh. Enough. Time to start posting again. Right now, some "link love." :)
Dean Esmay has managed to find a way to piss off half of Known Space with one of his iconoclastic positions here, wherein he challenges conventional thought on what really causes AIDS.
VodkaPundit Stephen Green lapses into premature Olde Farte Mode while ruminating on the origin of Twixters, with a bonus link to a delightful Lileks column on Olive Garden in the bargain.
Captain Ed at Captain's Quarters raises a good point while discussing the legitimacy of the upcoming Iraq elections
We managed to muster out a whopping 60.7% of our registered voters nationwide for our election -- and that was the best in over a generation. So far, I don't hear calls that our past nine elections should be invalidated due to their low turnout.Food for thought... :)
John of Arrrgh! mentions the work his Rotary Club does, including tsunami relief, Polio eradication, and sending school supplies to Iraq. One of his on-the-ground correspondents in Iraq included an adorable picture of some schoolkids saying "thanks."
Finally the always lovely (and talented) Ambra Nykol thinks Governor-theoretically-elect Gregoire is evil. Her reaction to Mr. Gregoire's title as consort-elect of First Gentleman: 'Riiiight. I am so not calling anybody a "First Gentleman".'
Heh.
This is only a test...
UPDATE: Ok, looks like I won't get bitten by the year-end wraparound problem...