The Warmonger Has Once Again Attacked Innocent Civilians, Slaughtering Babes In Arms And Harmless Pensioners
Of course he has. And all decent people everywhere will rise up in solidarity against the imperialist capitalist crusaders, and…and…burn down the local McDonald’s! Death to McCain and his whore, who “popped out a retard”!! Right arm!
(Heavy sigh.) Meanwhile, people who want to know what happened in Syria, and why US troops were in there killing people, will readMichael Yon and ponder the implications of events.
Is Iran A Problem Without A Solution?
The religious ideology of Iran makes that nation particularly dangerous. As discussed in Number Three of The Penguin Post, believers in the cult of the twelfth imam trust that if Iran is devastated by nuclear weapons, the total victory of Islam will be facilitated and accelerated.
The articles of faith seem to be a bad parody of a bad comic book. First millions of Iranians will vanish into hot gas, satisfying the divinity’s wishes. Then the returned imam will lead Muslims in the final battle; billions of infidels will perish and plunge to eternal torment in hell. The universal caliphate will take charge of submissive mankind, and there will be no further history.
If your enemy believes things like that, you have problems.
The US electorate’s understanding of the Iranian situation is primitive. Evidently many if not most voters want to send President Obama off to talk with lunatics, many of whom will consider him a detestable apostate.
The options to that naive nonsense appear to be few. They include:
1. The USA and/or Israel bombing Iran’s weapons shops. Depending entirely on one’s ideology, that is either folly or will succeed brilliantly.
2. Imposing regime change in Iran, possibly by fomenting another revolution.
3. Using all possible diplomatic resources to get Iran to see reason. This means involving the UN, the good offices of various Islamic states, and any other players that can be drafted.
4. Bringing Iran to heel with a blockade.
Some additional information and speculation may be useful — before, that is, we resign ourselves to (a) a huge war in the Muddle East, and (b) international terrorism on an unprecedented scale.
Note, for example, that very little is being said about the capabilities of today’s “bunker-buster” bombs. It is not rational to assume thatreported specifications are accurate for all existing models of these munitions. The USA almost certainly has very disappointing surprises for technicians laboring far below Iran’s landscape.
Next, consider the Israeli raid on that North Korean-designed nuclear reactor in Syria, in which the USA may be assumed to have participated by contributing electronic gear and computer software. The Syrian anti-aircraft network was the latest and best Russian model, and it was totally blind to the attack. Iran’s defenses are porous by comparison; upgrading them is futile.
Finally, understand and believe the hard fact that Israel will absolutely not allow an Iranian nuclear weapon to come into existence. For more information on this, see this article.
If things go as they should, Iran’s nuclear weapons program will simply stall, turn out its lights, and then be pushed aside. Exactly how and why that happened will probably not be publicly known during the lifetime of anyone alive today.
If things do not go properly, we may see a demonstration of technological prowess that many consider literally impossible. Imagine bombs that land on exactly the same spot, one after another; now imagine that each bomb in that sequence is distinctly designed — some to penetrate, some to shatter, some to clear away rubble, and some to suck the oxygen out of the air. Imagine explosions deep underground, caused by bombs that penetrated the site in ways that can never be determined. Imagine the secure workshops sealed, their technicians dying over many days with no hope of rescue.
Imagine, in other words, something that can be dismissed today as pure fantasy. That could be why it will work so well.
Those stubbornly opposed to a pro-Israel US policy, along with Birkenstock Brigadiers and assorted enemies of Western Civilization, will insist that it is unethical to defend the world against Iran. The victory of Obama in the forthcoming election will strengthen their hand. The real question is not whether Iran can be stopped, nor is it whether Israel will try to do that; instead we must ponder the role the USA will play in the coming solution to the Iranian problem.
Some will recall the virtually instantaneous reactions of Harry Truman to the foundation of Israel and the communist invasion of free Korea. The president acted immediately in both cases. Was he right, and was his decision to use nuclear weapons against Japan ethical? Harry did not have to debate those questions — he simply saw them for what they were, and acted accordingly. They were non-issues.
The USA does not have a Truman-like figure about to enter the White House. While we don’t know what that will mean, it could be very, very bad news.
Don’t Say It Ain’t So, Joe — Just Tell Us The Damn Truth
VP candidate Sen. Joe Biden says the Obama campaign did not pay ACORN for voter registrations. In fact he gets pretty hot under the collar when he denies it, and this time he does not even appear to have been drinking. Have a look.
He is a liar.
The Ohio primary was March 4. According to FEC records, the Obama campaign paid Citizens Services Inc. $832,598.29, from Feb. 25 to May 17.
Citizens Services Inc. is headquartered at the same address as ACORN’s national headquarters in New Orleans. Citizens Services was established in December 2004 to “assist persons and organizations who advance the interests of low- and moderate-income people,” according to paperwork filed in Louisiana. In a 2006 ACORN publication, Citizen Services Inc. is described as “ACORN’s campaign services entity.”
Read the full story in this detailed article.
Joe is so confident the news media will not blow the whistle that he feels safe to lie…about something that is easily checked.
Sure, not many voters will learn about this. But without the internet, no voters would ever learn about it.
Remember that when Obama tries to hand our internet over to the UN.
An Honest, Perceptive Journalist Looks At What Has Become Of His Occupation
Now there’s no substitute for reading the entire article, but nobody here expects you to do that — so here are the highlights:
…I watched with disbelief as the nation’s leading newspapers, many of whom I’d written for in the past, slowly let opinion pieces creep into the news section, and from there onto the front page. Personal opinions and comments that, had they appeared in my stories in 1979, would have gotten my butt kicked by the nearest copy editor, were now standard operating procedure at the New York Times, the Washington Post, and soon after in almost every small town paper in the US.
But what really shattered my faith — and I know the day and place where it happened — was the war in Lebanon three summers ago. The hotel I was staying at in Windhoek, Namibia, only carried CNN, a network I’d already learned to approach with skepticism. But this was CNN International, which is even worse.
I sat there, first with my jaw hanging down, then actually shouting at the TV, as one field reporter after another reported the carnage of the Israeli attacks on Beirut, with almost no corresponding coverage of the Hezbollah missiles raining down on northern Israel. The reporting was so utterly and shamelessly biased that I sat there for hours watching, assuming that eventually CNNi would get around to telling the rest of the story…but it never happened.
But nothing, nothing I’ve seen has matched the media bias on display in the current presidential campaign.
Republicans are justifiably foaming at the mouth over the sheer one-sidedness of the press coverage of the two candidates and their running mates. But in the last few days, even Democrats, who have been gloating over the pass — no, make that shameless support — they’ve gotten from the press, are starting to get uncomfortable as they realize that no one wins in the long run when we don’t have a free and fair press.
“Uncomfortable”? That’s debatable, but let it go for now.
The absolute nadir (though I hate to commit to that, as we still have two weeks before the election) came with Joe the Plumber.
Middle America, even when they didn’t agree with Joe, looked on in horror as the press took apart the private life of an average person who had the temerity to ask a tough question of a presidential candidate. So much for the standing up for the little man. So much for speaking truth to power. So much for comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable, and all of those other catchphrases we journalists used to believe we lived by. (Emphasis added.)
…most reporters, whatever their political bias, are human torpedoes — and, had they been unleashed, would have raced in and roughed up the Obama campaign as much as they did McCain’s. That’s what reporters do. I was proud to have been one, and I’m still drawn to a good story, any good story, like a shark to blood in the water.
Like any competent wordsmith or composer, the author is preparing his audience for the crescendo and coda. The question that introduces the final bars of his oeuvre is a thunderclap from the timpani:
So why weren’t those legions of hungry reporters set loose on the Obama campaign? Who are the real villains in this story of mainstream media betrayal?
The editors. The men and women you don’t see; the people who not only decide what goes in the paper, but what doesn’t; the managers who give the reporters their assignments and lay out the editorial pages. They are the real culprits.
Why? I think I know, because had my life taken a different path, I could have been one: Picture yourself in your 50s in a job where you’ve spent 30 years working your way to the top, to the cockpit of power…only to discover that you’re presiding over a dying industry. The Internet and alternative media are stealing your readers, your advertisers and your top young talent. Many of your peers shrewdly took golden parachutes and disappeared. Your job doesn’t have anywhere near the power and influence it did when your started your climb. The Newspaper Guild is too weak to protect you any more, and there is a very good chance you’ll lose your job before you cross that finish line, 10 years hence, of retirement and a pension.
In other words, you are facing career catastrophe — and desperate times call for desperate measures. Even if you have to risk everything on a single Hail Mary play. Even if you have to compromise the principles that got you here. After all, newspapers and network news are doomed anyway — all that counts is keeping them on life support until you can retire.
And then the opportunity presents itself — an attractive young candidate whose politics likely matches yours, but more important, he offers the prospect of a transformed Washington with the power to fix everything that has gone wrong in your career.
With luck, this monolithic, single-party government will crush the alternative media via a revived fairness doctrine, re-invigorate unions by getting rid of secret votes, and just maybe be beholden to people like you in the traditional media for getting it there. (Emphasis added.)
And besides, you tell yourself, it’s all for the good of the country….
The full, masterfully composed symphony — which one might call Number Last in Everything Flat, “La Mort des Dinosaurs” — is to be found at this address. It is devastating because it’s accurate.
Just in case: while the genie is out of the bottle, ABC just might decide to take this essay down — it is pretty embarrassing, after all. If that happens, here is a backup URL that will probably still work — even if ABC threatens legal action.
This Was To Be A Much Longer Item — A Definitive Dismantling Of Unctuous, Shameless Casuistry — But Nobody Would Read It All, So It’s Just A Peek At The Defense Mechanisms Of Deceit And Hypocrisy
There’s one in every other Starbucks chair: the guy who’s satisfied that the news media are doing a great job of moving the country forward. To him, The New York Times is an honorable institution, the dispenser of Truth and Wisdom. Media bias? Well, if you believe in that superstitious nonsense, you disqualify yourself as an educated person. He says things like this:
Obama will win the votes of probably 80 percent or more of journalists covering the 2008 election. Most political journalists we know are centrists — instinctually skeptical of ideological zealotry — but with at least a mild liberal tilt to their thinking, particularly on social issues.
Before answering the question, indulge us in noting that the subject of ideological bias in the news media is a drag. The people who care about it typically come at the issue with scalding biases of their own.
Fine, that’s an opinion one can sink one’s claws into — even while wondering what is meant by, “…indulge us in noting that those who care…” Perhaps that was supposed to read, “…indulge us as we note that….”?? Or maybe, “…indulge us if we note….”?? It’s odd, as well, to find oneself conspicuously patronized by a snob who stumbles over lexical blocks.
The “there is no ideological media bias” line is as old as the first media bias, and goes back to the earliest propaganda — which predates literacy. How to deal with it? For this situation, three relevant tactics come to mind.
1. Document the bias. Flood the censors, gatekeepers and propagandists with evidence. There is plenty. Start with back issues of this newsletter, and then dig into the archives of The Terrapin Gazette. The Eagle Wing Palace of The Queen Chinee will help you; just ask.
2. Point out the sneer (“So what?”), and draw attention to the elitist trivializing of the problem (it’s “a drag”). Remind everyone of the teenager’s dismissal of anything not trendy as “BORE-ingg!!” and do try to get the bratty, contemptuous tone of voice right. The “this whole thing is beneath me, raally” snobbery does not have to be endured in silence, because it is vulnerable to devastating parody.
Yes…parody offends the politically correct when it targets their deformed notions. The puffed-up classes can easily consider the hilarity uppity to the point of sinful. For the clever satirist, opportunities are legion; remember Nancy Grace?
That said, the public’s discussions of the abuse of journalistic privilege are far from trivial. They have profound implications for a representative democracy. The issues are the core values of the Enlightenment, and many good people have lost their lives in defense of our Liberty.
Ultimately we must move beyond comedy and remind those who would gloss over the media’s authoritarian hubris that all this does matter. That is to say…the author of this “media bias is no big deal” cant is a parasite.
3. Challenge the statements boldly. So journalists are mostly in the political middle? Bernard Goldberg explained that his colleague Dan Rather considered the political left to be the center, and anything to the right of that to be extremism. Goldberg’s point is trenchant and scalable. You will find it in his revelatory book, Bias.
Those three suggestions will get the thoughtful reader moving. For the entire mushy, slippery essay explaining that media bias is actually good for you, and besides it does not even exist anyway, have a look at this website.
Caution: a guy who writes for a living can easily use words to lock things away. Remain alert for attempts to limit the discussion, rule important parts of it out, ignore problems and make you think a partially-covered subject has been explored completely. Verbose does notmean adequate. Don’t let the drone of superficially plausible prose blur your view of the whole.
The Moving Stiletto Thrusts, And Having Thrust…Stings Yet Again
In a nutshell: the Obama campaign makes a “mistake” that works in its favor, and, when that “mistake” is exposed, wants the whistle-blower arrested, indicted, tried, convicted and sentenced. There is no parallel here with honest business practice. The parallel is with organized crime. The full story is yet another example of why this newsletter has characterized Obama as “autocratic and vengeful.”
Eye-opener: spend a few minutes here, and consider what awaits.
We have a lot to learn about Obama…and the news media lap dogs are not helping. The LA Times is sitting on a video tape that is of considerable interest; here is the story. Now the LAT says it can’t ethically release the video, because its source for the clip forbade that when he handed it to the newspaper. That begs an important question: should a principled daily accept a video, knowing in advance it could not be candid with the world and prove that its article(s) accurately depicted the contents of said video?
This in just as the PenPo is about to be distributed: there’s more and more recent information available here, in the event you want to do some metaphorical dumpster-diving.
You-know-who won’t report this, oh no: “The war is over.” Is it true? According to a source the PenPo considers good, yes, it is. Have a look.
Here’s more you won’t find in that newspaper you (used to?) read, or in the babble that splashes out of the wagging, nodding, bobbing head of Ms. Sincerity, Katie Korrekt: a report on why things are working better in Iraq these days. Funny how this came about, what with Bush refusing to talk with simply anybody anywhere with no preconditions….
Elections, Obama style:
(John)Fund reports that Democrats alone have 10,000 lawyers ready throughout the country to press for every advantage they can find.
It is in this light that the recent shenanigans with the now-infamous ACORN group should be considered. Barack Obama spent years serving as a lecturer on “power” to various ACORN training sessions, in addition to serving as an ACORN lawyer and providing funding for the group.
As Fund warned in his book — which he wrote before ACORN started making national news last month, so clearly not as an effort to piggyback on any candidate’s current political strategy — “ACORN is pledging to spend $35 million this year registering voters — both real and fictive.”
The goal is simple: Create so much confusion that the law gets thrown overboard and the vote counting become (sic) an exercise in raw political power.
Read more here. But whether you do or you don’t, expect fireworks as the ballot count begins. This looks as if it will be the dirtiest election in US history. Chicago, you have exported your political savvy!
Classicist Victor Davis Hanson has a lot of questions for Obama supporters. Winners, however, don’t have to answer questions. If they had been required to, they could have wound up losers; that’s why politicians like to have the media — that’s a plural noun, remember — as pets. Meanwhile, the Obama camp makes clear its attitude toward news media outlets that are not housebroken.
Deliberately missed opportunities: the news media have ignored many interesting aspects of the 2008 presidential campaign. There is a great deal the voters do not know, but should. The problem is not an absence of investigative reporting, but the quality of that reporting. As directed by the major media’s gatekeepers, coverage of the candidates and their staffs has been highly selective. And that’s putting it very, very mildly.
The ignorance of the electorate is a resource, and no one knows that better than the bigoted censors who determine what is a big story and what is a dispensable, trivial, small story.