Here's the latest:
Anna Nicole Smith is still dead.
The father of her baby is still unknown.
The disposition of her remains is still undecided.
And, most importantly, I still don't give a damn. The media could stop covering this story tomorrow, and I'd be just fine with that. But somehow, I suspect they won't.
In related news, the diapered astronaut is quite happy with the whole Anna Nicole saga. After all, Miss Smith's "untimely" passing knocked her right off the media's radar screen.
As the 2008 Presidential campaign heats up, and the debate over whether we should have gone into Iraq continues, a little historical perspective might be useful.
Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.
Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.
The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.
My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.
In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.
(emphasis mine)
-President William Jefferson Clinton, 1998
Judge postpones court-martial in Esposito slaying
A military judge has postponed the court-martial for a soldier charged with killing Capt. Phillip Esposito of Suffern and another officer in Iraq two years ago.
Opening statements for the trial of Staff Sgt. Alberto Martinez were to begin June 4. But Col. Patrick Parrish acquiesced to a defense motion for a delay and set an Aug. 13 deadline for empaneling a jury.
The trial would begin soon after that, said Thomas McCollum, a spokesman for Fort Bragg, N.C., where preliminary hearings in the case are being held. The trial is expected to be held there as well.
"The defense is being afforded every opportunity so that this case is tried completely fairly," McCollum said.
He announced no firm date for the court-martial.
Martinez has been charged with two counts of premeditated murder in the deaths of Esposito, 30, who was his company commander, and Lt. Louis E. Allen, 34, of Milford. Pa., second-in-command of the 42nd Infantry Division's headquarters unit.
Both men were wounded in an explosion June 7, 2005, at Forward Operating Base Danger near Tikrit. They died the next day.
Well isn't this nice:
Bank of America launches credit card for illegal immigrants
Bank of America, the country's second-largest bank, "has quietly begun offering credit cards to customers without Social Security numbers -- typically illegal immigrants," according to the Wall Street Journal.
Customers can qualify for a credit card if they have had a checking account at the bank for at least three months. They are required to leave a deposit and pay a relatively high interest rate, according to the paper.
The program is controversial. Bank of America says it will help undocumented workers build good credit. But critics say one of the USA's largest financial institutions should not be helping people who violate the country's immigration laws.
Well, this pisses me off. How do you feel about it? Oh, and you might be interested to know that BofA is the vendor for government travel cards. That's right, our tax dollars are helping to subsidize these illegal immigration-enablers. Wonderful.
Address given at Gettysburg, PA on November 19, 1863:
Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth upon this continent a new nation: conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war...testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated...can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war.
We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate...we cannot consecrate... we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.
It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us...that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion... that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain...that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom...and that government of the people...by the people...for the people...shall not perish from the earth.
Well this isn't encouraging:
Giuliani says gun control helped reduce N.Y. crime
SACRAMENTO -- Rudy Giuliani addressed a potentially troublesome issue with conservative voters, saying his policies as mayor to get handguns off the street helped reduce crime in New York.
"I used gun control as mayor," he said at a news conference Saturday during a swing through California. But "I understand the Second Amendment. I understand the right to bear arms."
He said what he did as mayor would have no effect on hunting.
(emphasis mine)
No effect on hunting? Sorry Rudy, but the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. And it's worth noting that NYC has had strict gun control laws for years, even when the crime rate was rising. It looks to me like Rudy just doesn't get it.
h/t: Drudge
He's no Al Gore, but Dr. Timothy Ball is a former professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg. Consequently, he may know something about the current hysteria over man-made global warming, even though he hasn't ever been nominated for an Oscar. Check out his column "Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?" over at the Canada Free Press website.
h/t: Drudge
Well this is surprising. From WTEN:
Budget Controversy Sparked by Just Two Little Lines
The Governor calls it a tax break - a tax break worth a couple of hundred dollars. But the people who teach your kids call it bad public policy.
The idea that parents who send their kids to a private or parochial school get a tax deduction was a surprise for many in the budget plan Governor Spitzer laid out. And some are saying it was snuck in, in the five-volume budget.
And the proposal makes up just two lines. NEWS10's John McLoughlin explains why those two little lines could be what many people will care the most about.
The Governor never even mentioned it during his budget briefings - but there it was, a new personal income tax deduction of up to one-thousand dollars for each kid in private or parochial school.
"Were you surprised when you saw this in the budget?" McLoughlin asked Steve Allinger, the Legislative Director of the New York State United Teachers Union.
"Yes, we were surprised," Allinger said.
Allinger, the lobbyist for NYSUT, says tax deductions for religious schools not only harm public education - he says they are simply wrong, "to use the public's tax expenditures or appropriations to support narrow private sectarian uses."
"They've got a lot of nerve complaining," says Dennis Poust, Legislative Director for the New York State Catholic Conference.
Poust says NYSUT's got a lot of nerve after Spitzer pledged a record seven-billion dollars in new school aid, while the private and parochial schools are educating half-a-million youngsters for a lot less money.
This is something I didn't expect from Spitzer. Most Democrats are so tight with the teachers' unions that they wouldn't even dream of proposing such a thing. Of course NYSUT's response was exactly what I expected. Their rep makes it a point to mention that money would go to "sectarian" schools. No one ever seems to remember that millions of dollars in government financial aid and student loans goes to private religious colleges and universities every year. I guess we owe this oversight to the lack of a powerful union for professors at the state instititions of higher education. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and all that.
It'll be interesting to see if our new Governor has the stones to stand up to them. I'll keep my fingers crossed, but I'm not holding my breath.
Judge orders independent investigator in Iraq ‘fragging’ case
FORT BRAGG, N.C. - A judge has ordered the government to pay for an independent investigator who will help prepare a defense for a soldier accused of killing two superior officers in Iraq. Military judge Col. Patrick Parrish granted the request after lawyers for Staff Sgt. Alberto Martinez complained Army investigators haven’t cooperated with them.
Martinez, 39, of Troy, N.Y., is the only soldier known to be charged with killing his superior officer during the Iraq war, also known as “fragging.”
He is accused of killing Capt. Phillip Esposito, 30, of Suffern, N.Y., and 1st Lt. Louis Allen, 34, of Milford, Pa., by setting off grenades and a mine in their room at one of Saddam Hussein’s former palaces in June 2005. The pair were his superior officers in the 42nd Infantry Division of the New York National Guard.
Allen, who grew up in Chester, N.Y., was a biology teacher at George F, Baker High School in Tuxedo.
Before issuing his ruling, Parrish noted that a civilian defendant in a death penalty case could be given an independent investigator at government expense.
“Do you think that would sit well with Congress, knowing that a soldier has fewer rights than a person sitting in a federal prison?” Parrish asked military prosecutor Capt. Adam Siple.
Parrish gave the defense until Jan. 19 to recommend an investigator to be hired.
Military judge grants access to files in Iraq murder case
(Fort Bragg, NC-AP) January 11, 2007 - Attorneys representing a soldier charged with killing two superior officers in Iraq will get access to the government's electronic data, including classified evidence.
The military judge ordered the access Thursday. Staff Sergeant Alberto Martinez faces two counts of premeditated murder in the deaths of Captain Phillip Esposito of Suffern, New York, and First Lieutenant Louis Allen of Milford, Pennsylvania.
Prosecutors say Martinez, of the New York Army National Guard, set off grenades and a mine in a room where Esposito and Allen were staying in June 2005.
The judge says that the government must allow access to both unclassified and classified data collected in the case. He also ordered the government to provide a computer expert to the defense lawyers.
At a November hearing, defense lawyers hinted that a Supreme Court decision barring the execution of mentally retarded defendants could keep the Army from seeking a death sentence against Martinez. They didn't elaborate.
(emphasis mine)
In his book Hurray! We're Capitulating!, German author Henryk M. Broder examines the western world's total lack of courage in the face of Muslim intimidation. Der Spiegel has posted an excerpt from the book on their english language online edition. Mr. Broder gets it. Too bad so many of his European brethren (and their American admirers) don't.
Chinese TV Network Bans Pig Ads During Year of Pig Celebrations Due to Muslim Sensitivity
SHANGHAI — Companies looking to reach China's consumer market with pig images during Year of the Pig celebrations next month will have to adjust after a national television network adopted a policy to be sensitive to the country's small Muslim population, according to published reports.
China Central Television said it would ban all verbal and visual pork references from advertisements during Lunar New Year celebrations next month, the Wall Street Journal reported. This week, the network banned a TV ad from Nestle SA featuring a smiling cartoon pig and the message, "Happy new pig year."
I saw this story linked on the Drudge Report. From the Hollywood Reporter:
Redford lands left hook, criticizes Bush policy
PARK CITY -- Robert Redford came out swinging at the 2007 Sundance Film Festival's opening news conference Thursday, attacking the Bush administration for its politics as strongly as he dismissed film buyers who want his fest to serve as a market.
"Anyone with a rational mind and a sense of decency is being positioned as a lefty by the extreme right," he said, responding to an attendee who asked whether he thought Sundance selections were politically oriented to the left. "I believe in the tenets of democracy, and when they get pushed, it pisses me off," he said.
Redford maintained that Sundance films always have been politically diverse but said that "in light of what's happened in the past six years, we haven't adhered to snuffing attempts from the administration. ... (Documentaries) have become more of a truth to power in an environment where lying is treated like a political asset."
"I'm left-handed," he joked. "I'm not a very moderate person."
So, first he complains about his political opponents labeling him and other dissenters as "lefty." Then, in the same sentence no less, he labels said opponents as "the extreme right." Irony, anyone? And just to make the ridiculousness of his statement complete, he basically admits that he is a lefty. This would be funnier if there weren't so many people who take these clowns seriously.
I wish this was surprising. From the Washington Times:
On Dec. 5, Newsweek magazine touted an interview with then-incoming House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Rep. Silvestre Reyes as an "exclusive." And for good reason.
"In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq," the story began, Mr. Reyes "said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a 'stepped up effort to dismantle the militias.' "
"We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq," the Texas Democrat said to the surprise of many, "I would say 20,000 to 30,000."
Then came President Bush's expected announcement last week, virtually matching Mr. Reyes' recommendation and argument word-for-word -- albeit the president proposed only 21,500 troops.
Wouldn't you know, hours after Mr. Bush announced his proposal, Mr. Reyes told the El Paso Times that such a troop buildup was unthinkable.
"We don't have the capability to escalate even to this minimum level," he said.
Don't even try to tell me these people aren't playing politics with our national security. Of course Reyes is the same clown who didn't know whether al Qaeda was Sunni or Shiite. But colossal ignorance notwithstanding, Congressman Reyes should at least know what his own position is on a troop increase. But don't expect an explanation as to why his position changed. Reyes will count on the MSM to give him a pass. And they will, as they always do for Democrats. Unfortunately, most of the mushy middle--the much coveted "moderate" voters--still get most of their news from the MSM.
h/t: Drudge
Yet another example of why terrorism shouldn't be treated as a law enforcement issue (as if we really needed one):
Appeals court vacates sentence of 'millennium bomber' Ressam
I'm no psychic, but I saw this coming from way back. From the National Ledger:
Fairness Doctrine: The Plan to Silence Conservatives
Memphis, Tennessee: Media reform sounds like a good cause. But the gathering here of more than 2,000 activists turned out to be an effort to push the Democratic Party further to the left and get more "progressive" voices in the media, while proposing to use the power of the federal government to silence conservatives.
In short, triumphant liberals now want to consolidate and expand their power.
Several speakers, including Senator Bernie Sanders and Rep. Maurice Hinchey, declared that they think Congress should use a new federal "fairness doctrine" to target conservative speech on television and radio.
But while conservatives are not ashamed to be conservatives, because of the popularity of their ideas about freedom, a strong military, economic growth and traditional values, the liberals at this conference wanted desperately to avoid the use of the term "liberal," apparently because of its association with failed domestic, social and foreign policies. They described themselves and their causes as "progressive."
If this conference has an impact, and the participants were called upon to put pressure on the media and Congress, we should expect increasing references to the term "progressive" in coverage of controversial liberal initiatives, including the proposed agenda for "media reform." The only question is when congressional liberals get enough nerve to aggressively push this authoritarian attempt to muzzle their political opponents.
Free speech threatens one-party rule. Just ask the GOP. And the Dems, one election shy of a return to their "rightful" place as ruling party, won't stand for anything that threatens their grip on power. If they regain the White House in '08, look for more legal limits to be placed on free speech, especially talk radio and the blogosphere. If you have something to say about that, you'd better say it now. While you still can legally do so.
Sen. Kennedy Seeks Universal Health Plan
WASHINGTON (AP) - The federal government should join the state of Massachusetts in enacting universal health coverage, said Sen. Edward Kennedy, the new chairman of the Senate committee with jurisdiction over numerous health issues.
Kennedy's home state is the first to require everyone to have health insurance, just as drivers must have automobile coverage.
Kennedy has his own version of what universal health coverage would look like. He wants to extend Medicare to all. In his first hearing Wednesday as chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, the Massachusetts Democrat called on 10 witnesses from all over the country to talk about how to make health care more affordable.
"Insurance coverage is down. Costs are up. And America is heading to the bottom of the league of major nations in important measures of the quality of care," Kennedy said.
(emphasis mine)
There's been something missing from this blog for the past couple of weeks. You've probably noticed it if you're one of my regular readers. That something is...content. New content to be precise. There are several reasons for this. Time, convenience, and just plain old laziness are all part of the equation. If I'm going to continue to maintain this blog, I'm going to need to make some changes in what I'm doing here and how I'm doing it. I have a few ideas, but there's still some work to do. In the meantime, you may want to check out these columns:
John Weisman takes a good look at changes at DoD
Ralph Peters looks at the reasoning behind the administration's choice for a new CENTCOM commander
John Stoessel examines the proposal to raise the minimum wage
Propaganda has become a dirty word to Americans. It conjurs up images of Joseph Goebbels, and movies by Leni Riefenstahl. But the truth is, propaganda is essential to winning a war. It can provide a warring nation with a sort of psychological momentum, while denying this to an enemy.
Our enemies in the war on Islamic extremism have made excellent use of propaganda. The infamous sniper videos, for instance, can be used to recruit troops for their cause (when shown on Arabic news channels) and to demoralize their enemies (when shown on CNN). War crimes by Americans are played up, exaggerated, or even completely fabricated.
And what is the American media's response to this? Why they lap it up, of course; always willing to be spoon-fed any story that paints the US military or the current situation in Iraq in a bad light, regardless of the source.
If we're going to win this war--not just the war in Iraq, but the global war on terrorism--we're going to need to learn wage a propaganda war. In his recent Townhall.com column, Michael McBride takes a hard look at what he calls the "information war," and the role that our news media has played in it so far.
Vietnam forever changed the relationship between the military and the Mainstream Media. I think that the case can be made to some degree that the real issue is between various administrations, their Pentagon inhabitants, and the media…not between the media and the troops on the ground. But what happens in this food fight is that the cafeteria fare almost always ends up on the faces, and uniforms of the troops. (good references here…A Bright and Shining Lie, Dereliction of Duty, Once Upon a Distant War, The Best and the Brightest, The Pentagon Papers) And all the troops I know are pretty unforgiving when their uniform is stained by someone else’s careless behavior, or their reputation is smeared through careless and biased reporting. (Hugh Hewitt’s interview with LtGen Mattis makes the case here.)
This fissure, first noticed after ApBac in Vietnam, and widened irreparably by Walter Cronkite’s 1968 Tet reporting, has only festered since. The military has done its part…successful campaigns in Panama, Grenada, Desert Storm and the current war in Iraq. There have been setbacks, Iranian Hostage Rescue, Beirut (driven by political constraints of the day, see The Root by Eric Hammel ), the USS Cole, but-by-and large, the military has more than upheld its contract with the citizens of this country by responding superbly when tasked by the nation Command Authority.
Their reward?...continuous deriding and minimalization of their accomplishments by the MSM corps. The badgering of generals, the callous showing of soldiers and Marines dying at the hands of snipers, the blatant disregard for other metrics of success other than US casualty counts, only reinforces the utter disrespect and disdain that the MSM has for the military, and by extension…the troops in the field.
As a result of the MSM messaging, our field generals, and our troops are being portrayed as failing. I think this is an incorrect representation of what is happening…we are really losing the information war, and as with Vietnam, if we don’t adjust fire soon, we may lose the war in Iraq…a vital battle in the Global War on Terror.
McBride goes on to outline what needs to be done to turn things around. Among other things, he suggests cutting much of the mainstream media out of the loop. That's a pretty radical solution, but I don't see any other choices. As things stand now, I have serious doubts about our ability to wage an extended war. No matter how much the country may be behind a war, the media--always in search of another scandal, higher ratings, and more awards--will turn on the military. It's not they they won't aid in spreading propaganda, it's just that they tend to do it for the wrong side.
