Olbermann Establishes His Stupidity Credibility

Newsweek runs a story with flimsy factual support, and 15 people die as a result of the riots that every major news organization agrees was triggered by the Newsweek story. Obviously, someone should be fired for this travesty of journalism.

Only a pseudo-blogging pseudo-journalist could be stupid enough to insist that the person fired should not come from Newsweek, but from the White House.

Only a buffoon would call the White House "treasonous" for not stopping journalistic flops, as if there was a First Amendment exception so that the White House could countermand the freedom of the press, in just those instances that freedom might make the press look bad. Or in Olbermann's case, perhaps it was just wishful thinking, coming far too late in his career.

In any event, thank you, Keith Olbermann, for further cementing America's dwindling respect for the credibility of the liberal media.

Remember kids,

"Guns Don't Kill People. Reporters Kill People."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:59 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 166 words, total size 1 kb.

Fox Squeals When Trapped

I don't care what you say Vincente, this is still an excellent idea.

And despite what you might have heard from Newsweek, while Fox did make comments saying American blacks were lazy, he did not try to flush them down toilets.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 49 words, total size 1 kb.

A Comment on the "Religion of Peace"

When I hat-tipped Austin Bay's article yesterday as the inspiration for my Michael Isikoff/Lyndie England comparison, I did so after writing a comment that later I deleted before publication.

That comment was in response to comments such as these that Austin compiled from Muslim comments around the web:

“If the report proved true, it would become important that an apology be
issued and addressed to Muslims all over the world to avoid increasing the
hatred between nations and followers of religious faiths as well,” the Shoura
said in a statement.

The Shoura said it considered the incident an attack on Muslims all
over the world. “The council considers it as an attack on the feelings of
Muslims and their sanctityÂ… and a violation of international law and human
customs,” said the statement carried by the Saudi Press Agency…

*****

In Afghanistan, a group of clerics threatened to call for a holy war
against the United States in three days unless it handed over military
interrogators who are reported to have desecrated the Qur'an.

*****

“The American soldiers are known for disrespect to other religions. They do
not take care of the sanctity of other religions,” Qazi Hussain Ahmed, the
Pakistani chief of a coalition of radical Islamic groups, said Sunday.

So Muslim leaders are worried about religious tolerance and disrespect?

Quite frankly, let them go to hell.

Islam is responsible for some of the largest human slaughters in human history, precisely for reasons of religious intolerance. Islam is the only religion that has proudly named a mountain range after one of their more serious crimes against humanity, and is responsible for more religious-based genocide that any other single religion that has ever existed on Planet Earth, genocide that continues to this very second in conflicts around this planet.

Perhaps I might have a bit more sympathy for a religion that didn't codify lying as a religious duty and often boasts about a 1,400 year track record of murdering those that had different ideas. Islam may be a lot of things and it may have some peaceful adherents, but if there is one thing Islam that can be said with absolute authority about Islam, it is that Islam is not now, nor has it ever been, a "religion of peace."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:32 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 393 words, total size 3 kb.

Journalism Safety PSA

"Guns Don't Kill People. Reporters Kill People."

Kids, remember to follow these simple rules if you find a journalist:

STOP AND DON'T TOUCH IT.
LEAVE THE AREA
TELL A RESPONSIBLE ADULT WHAT YOU FOUND

The adult should NOT touch the journalist either.

Even if the adult is familiar with journalism safety rules, the journalist should not be handled.

The journalist could be essential evidence that could be used in a solving a crime and the mere position of the journalist could be important. Not to mention footprints, fingerprints, clothing threads, blood, tire tracks or cartridge cases that might be in the immediate area.

If you are alone, remember exactly where the journalist is.

Carefully leave the area without disturbing anything.

If possible, post a sentry or responsible person to keep everyone away from the area.

As soon as possible, bring a police officer to the journalist. Don't pick it up and bring it to the police station.

Thank You.

(with apologies to http://www.savetheguns.com/safety_rules.htm)

Note: If anyone has a "Guns Don't Kill People. Reporters Kill People." tee shirt or bumper sticker for sale other their site (hint, hint), let me know and I'll link it in.

Update: Vilmar has an intersting take on this story defending Newsweak... sorta.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:18 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 213 words, total size 2 kb.

The Indepedent's Incredible Self-Fisking Mr. Buncombe

The UK-based Independent (Robert Fisk's employer) is running an Andrew Buncombe story reporting an "AWOL crisis" as a result of the War on Terror, with this lede:

As the death toll of troops mounts in Iraq and Afghanistan, America's military recruiting figures have plummeted to an all-time low. Thousands of US servicemen and women are now refusing to serve their country.

The problem is, the Independent don't have any figures to support that contention, and the one set of hard numbers the author provides at the end of the article suggests just the opposite; a significant reduction in desertions since 9/11.

Welcome to the self-Fisking of Andrew Buncombe.

Instead of interviewing credible expert witnesses, the Independent reporter stoops to using unsupported these third-party anecdotes:

Staff who run a volunteer hotline to help desperate soldiers and recruits
who want to get out, say the number of calls has increased by 50 per cent since
9/11. Last year alone, the GI Rights Hotline took more than 30,000 calls. At
present, the hotline gets 3,000 calls a month and the volunteers say that by the
time a soldier or recruit dials the help-line they have almost always made up
their mind to get out by one means or another.

"People are calling us because there is a real problem," said Robert
Dove, a Quaker who works in the Boston office of the American Friends Service
Committee, one of several volunteer groups that have operated the hotline since
1995. "We do not profess to be lawyers or therapists but we do provide both
types of support."

In other words, the author is relying upon uncorroborated information from biased sources that readily admit to providing services for which they are not qualified (other than Congress).

In addition to collecting hearsay evidence from these amateur therapists, the Independent author also interviewed three soldiers who went AWOL:

• Jeremiah Adler: who admitted to lying about being homosexual to get out of boot camp;
• Jeremy Hinzman: a Fort Brag paratrooper who's application for amnesty was rejected by Canada;
• Kevin Benderman: a Bradley IFV mechanic that claims to have seen acts that would constitute war crimes... if they turn out to be real.

These three soldiers were the only ones interviewed, but what about the growing thousands of other soldiers that are deserting according to the Independent? They don't exist. The preceding 20 paragraphs of Buncombe's thesis were completely undone by his final three lines.

It turns out that the number of soldiers deserting is on a significant decline:

The Pentagon says it does not keep records of how many try to desert each year.
A spokeswoman, Lieutenant Colonel Ellen Krenke, said the running rally[sic] had declined since 9/11 from 8,396 to the present total of 5,133.[emphasis added --ed.] She added: "The vast majority of those who desert do so because they have committed some criminal act, not for political or conscientious objector purposes."

I think I'm going to become of conscientious objector myself, at least as it relates to Mr. Buncombe's shoddy and eventually self-defeating brand of journalism.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:09 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 517 words, total size 4 kb.

Michael Isikoff: the MSM's Lyndie England

Newsweek's liberal--oops, I meant libel--has managed to kill 15 people so far as a reporter intent on tarring the government and the US military ran a story that now seems rooted in...

Almost nothing.

According to Newsweek reporter Michael Isikoff, a "trusted source" told him the Qur'an, the Muslim holy book, was defaced in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Two other sources Isikoff asked about the incident did not support the allegation, so what did Newsweek do?

They ran the story.

In the resulting uproar, 15 are dead, and westerners in the Muslim world are now at a heightened state of risk, all because of a half-baked rumor in an incomplete draft report that someone might have heard about. Great sourcing, guys. Glad to see you learned a lot from Mary Mapes.

When an idiot by the name of Lyndie England exhibited foolish, unprofessional behavior that embarressed people, she was charged with crimes that could eventually land her in prison for a decade or more. As Michael Isikoff's foolish, unprofessional behavior got 15 people killed and scores wounded, I can only assume his prison term will match that of any other person who incites multiple murders (h/t: Austin Bay).

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:02 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 209 words, total size 1 kb.

Banning Books

When books are banned, only criminals will have books (h/t: Instapundit).

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:18 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 15 words, total size 1 kb.

A Letter to His Sons On the War

This was written by a retired attorney, to his sons, May 19, 2004. My father forwarded it to me earlier this year, and it bears re-reading.

Dear Tom, Kevin, Kirby and Ted,

As your father, I believe I owe it to you to share some thoughts on the present world situation. We have over the years discussed a lot of important things, like going to college, jobs and so forth. But this really takes precedence over any of those discussions. I hope this might give you a longer term perspective that fewer and fewer of my generation are left to speak to. To be sure you understand that this is not politically flavored, I will tell you that since Franklin D. Roosevelt, who led us through pre and WWII (1933 - 1945) up to and including our present President, I have without exception, supported our presidents on all matters of international conflict. This would include just naming a few in addition to President

Roosevelt - WWII:
President Truman - Korean War 1950;
President Kennedy - Bay of Pigs (1961);
President Kennedy - Vietnam (1961);
eight presidents (5 Republican & 4 Democrat) during the cold war (1945 -1991);
President Clinton's strikes on Bosnia (1995) and on Iraq (199 .

So be sure you read this as completely non-political or otherwise you will miss the point. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).

The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.

First, let's examine a few basics:

1. When did the threat to us start?

Many will say September 11th, 2001.

The answer as far as the United States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us:

• Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
• Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
• Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
• Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
• First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
• Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
• Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;
• Dar es Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
• Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;
• New York World Trade Center 2001;
• Pentagon 2001.

(Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide).

2. Why were we attacked?
Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.

4. Who were the attackers?
In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.

5. What is the Muslim population of the World?
25%

6. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?
Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests).

Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the 6 million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian or any others. Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way - their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else..

The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing - by their own pronouncements -killing all of us infidels.

I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?

6. So who are we at war with?
There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.

So with that background, now to the two major questions:
1. Can we lose this war?
2. What does losing really mean?

If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions.

We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean? It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post-Vietnam.

This is as far from the truth as one can get. What losing really means is:

We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us over the past 18 years.

The plan was clearly to terrorist attack us until we were neutered and submissive to them.

We would of course have no future support from other nations for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see we are impotent and cannot help them.

They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed
their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do, will be done. Spain is finished.

The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast.

If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us if they were threatened by the Muslims. If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else? The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war and therefore are completely committed to winning at any cost. We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.

Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.

So, how can we lose the war? Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by imploding. That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win.

Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation.

- President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation.
Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war.

For the duration we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.

And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then. Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him? No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.

- Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that
conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening, it concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.

- Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war by a small group of our military police.

These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein. And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type enemy fighters who recently were burning Americans and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq. And still more recently the same type enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of an American prisoner they held.

Compare this with some of our press and politicians who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners - not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them. Can this be for real?

The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can. To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned - totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world.

Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they absolutely oblivious to the magnitude of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us for many years. Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels. That translates into all non-Muslims - not just in the United States, but throughout the world. We are the last bastion of defense.

- We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world. We can't. If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the World will survive if we are defeated. And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the Press, equal rights for anyone - let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the World.

This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.

If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?

Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece. And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power.

They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses.

Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the "peaceful Muslims"?

I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I believe that after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about. Do whatever you can to preserve it.

Love,
Dad

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:38 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 2465 words, total size 14 kb.

Dereliction of Duty

Jerry Seper of the Washington Times is reporting this morning that the federal government has ordered Border Patrol agents to avoid making arrests of illegal aliens, because higher-ups felt that an increase in the number of apprehensions would prove the effectiveness of the Minuteman Project.

Seper writes:

More than a dozen agents, all of whom asked not to be identified for fear of retribution, said orders relayed by Border Patrol supervisors at the Naco, Ariz., station made it clear that arrests were "not to go up" along the 23-mile section of border that the volunteers monitored to protest illegal immigration.

"It was clear to everyone here what was being said and why," said one veteran agent. "The apprehensions were not to increase after the Minuteman volunteers left. It was as simple as that."

Another agent said the Naco supervisors "were clear in their intention" to keep new arrests to an "absolute minimum" to offset the effect of the Minuteman vigil, adding that patrols along the border have been severely limited.

If true, these allegations by veteran law enforcement field officers of the Border Patrol point to actions by Border Patrol management that is almost certainly criminal in intent.

Answers.com provides the primary definition of "dereliction" as:

Willful neglect, as of duty or principle.

By ordering field agents of the Border Patrol to willfully neglect their duties as law enforcement officers, Border Patrol Chief David V. Aguilar and other senior staff of the Border Patrol have asked law enforcement officers to commit a crime to cover up the incompetence and apathy of the Federal government towards illegal immigration.

It takes no great stretch of the imagination to think that this conspiracy runs in a direct line from the Border Patrol though the Department of Homeland Security, directly to the White House and George Bush, a man who once called the Minutemen volunteers peacefully and legally planning to watch the border for illegal activity "vigilantes."

The article added:

...Rep. Tom Tancredo, Colorado Republican, yesterday said "credible sources" within the Border Patrol also had told him of the decision by Naco supervisors to keep new arrests to a minimum, saying he was angry but not surprised.

"It's like telling a cop to stand by and watch burglars loot a store but don't arrest any of them," he said. "This is another example of decisions being made at the highest levels of the Border Patrol that are hurting morale and helping to rot the agency from within.

"I worry about our efforts in Congress to increase the number of agents," he said. "Based on these kinds of orders, we could spend the equivalent of the national debt and never have secure borders."

Mr. Tancredo, chairman of the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus, blamed the Bush administration for setting an immigration enforcement tone that suggests to those enforcing the law that he is not serious about secure borders.

"We need to get the president to come to grips with the seriousness of the problem," he said. "I know he doesn't like to utter the words, 'I was wrong,' but if we have another incident like September 11 by people who came through our borders without permission, I hope he doesn't have to say 'I'm sorry.' "

That is my fear as well. The Bush administration, starting with President Bush himself, is setting a horrible example for border security; one that may cost American lives. It amazes me to think that a man who has such a vision on Middle Eastern issues could be such an incompetent clod in securing his own nation's borders against foreign invaders.

President Bush is proving to be a Winston Churchill abroad, and a Neville Chamberlain at home. His acquiescence to the will of Vincente Fox and Mexico's government-sponsered illegal invasion is the untalked about Munich Agreement of American/Mexican politics.

As I've mentioned before in Border War:

1.1 million illegals were captured along the 2,000 mile southern border last year, with half of those captured coming through Arizona. Among the majority millions of illegals that crossed successfully last year were violent Central American gang members and 25 suspected Chechen terrorists in July that to this day have not been captured...

...In 2004, the equivalent of 160 12,500 military divisions simply walked northward across the U.S.-Mexican border to disappear into our country's interior. Opposing them is an apathetic federal government, a complicit media, an overworked Border Patrol, and now, the militia the Constitution intended.

The Minuteman Project is firing a very public media shot across the bow of an apathetic, perhaps complicit, White House and Congress. Hopefully this negative exposure will force the government to shore up our borders.

Apparently not, or not yet at least. Instead, Bush lends support to illegals with a medical supplement (in order to quiet calls for reform from a medical sector being bled dry by illegal aliens), and John McCain partners with Ted Kennedy to champion a law that includes an amnesty program that encourages more illegal immigration.

Quite frankly, if we suffer a second 9/11/01 because of President Bush's apathy towards the issue of border security, I will be among the loudest of voices calling for his impeachment.

When George W. Bush took his oath of office both times, he spoke these words as laid out Article II, Section I of the Constitution:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

By willfully neglecting to protect the borders of the United States, George W. Bush is dangerously close to breaking that oath.

Update: This Blue State Conservatives article on the same topic is worth a read, as is this attempt at "Mexicanizing" America.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:12 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 968 words, total size 8 kb.

Avenger Red Six Rolls Back Into Action

After a well-deserved break, Silver Star-winning milblogger Neil Prakash is back in his Abrams turret at Armor Geddon, pouring out the gritty details of what the battle for Fallujah was really like from someone who experienced it.

Carpe Bonum did an excellent bit of public service and created an article index of Avenger Red Six's experiences in the assault on Fallujah from November 5-12, 2004. Future articles in the series seem imminent.

A sample:

"Red 6, Phantom 6. I want you to move to a position where you can observe the city. Ramrod 6 wants you to call for indirect. Adjust your first round. After that, it's ‘Fire for effect. Drop 50, fire for effect. Drop 50, fire for effect. And just keep doing that until someone tells you to stop, Got it?"

Yeah I got it alright. Wipe out a grid square. The task force commander wanted me to level the city.

Milblogging don't get much more tense than Armor Geddon.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 175 words, total size 1 kb.

Blogger For Hire

In the event some hiring manager types are reading this, I'd like to mention that I am looking for a job in RTP, North Carolina, preferably a position that takes advantage of my technical writing education and experience, and my background in web design, marketing, and usability.

I would also like to help companies interested in developing blog strategies for customer service, media relations, internal communications, and damage control, in addition to helping them set up acceptable-use blogging policies for their employees.

I can be contacted at confederateyankee@hotmail.com.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:26 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 94 words, total size 1 kb.

Roger & Me (and the United Nations), Part Deux

A wonderful quality of stupid people (from a blogger's perspective) is their inability to shut up when they've already lost the argument.

The folks at UN Dispatch come back for more abuse as they attempt to save face for their disastrous attempt to go after blogger Roger L. Simon for his attention to the UN Oil-for-Food Scandal.

The John Kerry fanboys write:

Not surprisingly, our previous post about Roger L. Simon's hyper-focus on the Oil-for-Food controversy elicited a strong response from the UN's blog critics.

And not unexpectedly, the responses were largely dismissive, derisive, and betrayed a shallow reading of the original post.

One is forced to remind UN Dispatch that their original post was dismissive (of the gravity of the Oil-for-Food scandal), derisive (of Roger and his choice of subject matter), and betrayed a number of shallow spots at UN Dispatch, including an understanding of the magnitude of the Oil-For-Food Scandal and its newsworthiness, and understanding of the way the news cycle works, and a general misunderstanding of the workings of the blogosphere.

Simon and literally hundreds of other bloggers and members of the international news media are on the Oil-For-Food scandal because it is perhaps the greatest example of international organized crime in the history of the world. Period.

This crime spans the world, potentially breaches thousands of laws in dozens of countries, and trades billions of dollars for power, at the expense of who-knows-how-many thousands dead.

20% of his time is too much? I'd argue the rest of us aren't paying enough attention to the scandal.

The authors then go on to condemn this blog among others:

Finally, an unfortunate reaction from some bloggers is their willingness to simply shrug off the examples of UN-related issues listed in the original post. It's clear that many of these bloggers have become accustomed to knee-jerk attacks and are unwilling (or unable) to engage in a reasoned debate.

Want a reasoned debate? Name the topic, and fire the opening salvo. I'm waiting.

Notice that UN Dispatch does not attempt to debunk any of the comments made by any of the bloggers they disagree with, Confederate Yankee included. Apparently, readers of UN Dispatch are supposed to simply believe them and disagree with us, simply because they...

Well, they don't exactly say why we should see things their way (perhaps they have a plan?). We just should, you know?

UN Dispatch ends this sad post with:

For the record, we'll re-post the issues we think warrant attention and let readers decide:

Newsflash: They already did.

Once again, the UN turns a blind eye to things they would rather not see.

Update: I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:03 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 464 words, total size 4 kb.

Bronx Coward Convicted

Via Michelle Malkin, I found out that Navy deserter (and Bronx native) Pablo Paredes has been convicted and now awaits sentencing. For those of you not following the story, Petty Officer 3rd Class Paredes was in the Navy when he refused to honor his commitment and report to his ship in San Diego for a tour. Because of his selfish act, another sailor was required to take Paredes tour.

Citizen Smash, a San Diego Naval Reserve officer/milblogger who has already done a tour in the region, wrote this open letter to Paredes (who responded), and later had a few words with him in person.

I hope Paredes enjoys his Chomsky in prison.

Update: This observation by Lawhawk is too good to leave buried in the comments:

The ship that Paredes was supposed to be on was on the vanguard of the US tsunami relief. Instead of helping save lives of tens of thousands of people affected by the tsunami, Paredes could think only of himself.

Now, he'll have a year to think about his actions. In prison. Where he belongs.

I'm sure that the sailor who took Paredes place was pissed to have to be called upon to do the work of Paredes, but will probably remember this particular mission with honor and a sense of pride of being there to help people far less fortunate than himself.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:54 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 234 words, total size 2 kb.

Democrats Claim Political Balance on PBS is ILLEGAL?

According to Rep. David Obey, D-Wisconsin, and Rep. John D. Dingell, D-Michigan, attempting to have political balance on PBS should be illegal. Obey and Dingell are accusing Center for Public Broadcasting Chairman Kenneth Tomlinson of "pushing a Republican agenda."

Tomlinson has taken the "disturbing" and "extremely troubling" steps of trying to add balance to PBS programming, such as when he added Journal Editorial Report to counterbalance Now With Bill Moyers, a show with a notoriously biased liberal bent.

From an Tomlinson in On the Media:

"I don't want to achieve balance by taking programs that are the favorites of good liberals off the air. I want to make sure that when you have programs that tilt left, we also have some programs that tilt right so the viewer can make up his or her own mind...

"...I am for good investigative journalism in the tradition of "Frontline" and "60 Minutes." I have no objection to politically tilted programs. Will there be times when reporting supersedes the issue of balance? Absolutely. The public understands what it is. People here in Washington understand what it is. They can see the tilt. And what I want to do is, I want people not to regard public broadcasting as the voice of one particular ideological side in this country. I want them to hear the voices of America, the diverse voices of America on the public television." [ed.--emphasis added]

Tomlinson was an appointee of President Bill Clinton to the Center for Public Broadcasting board, after serving as the Director of the Voice of America from 1982-84 under President Reagan, and was confirmed as a member of the CPB Board in September 2000.

This is not the first time Democrats have looked to restrict free speech in recent memory.

I'm rather certain it will not be the last attempt, either.

Update: The LA Times now has an article up on the subject.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:11 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 331 words, total size 3 kb.

Roger & Me (and the United Nations)

Poor Roger L. Simon.

Screen writer, blogger, and one of the founders of Pajamas Media (full disclosure: I've signed on to PJ Media as well), Roger is being attacked by a United Nations blog run by a couple of John Kerry fanboys.

Simon's crime?

20% of Roger L. Simon's blog entries during the month of April make reference to the Oil-for-Food controversy.

0% of Roger L. Simon's blog entries during April make reference to the following UN-related issues:

They then go on to list a bunch of issues that that think build the case for how successful the United Nations is, apparently in an attempt to show that Roger is unfair. Let's look at some of these, shall we? I'll use their links of "successes" from their blog, and then comment as it seems appropriate.

Tackling the threat of transnational organized crime

After reading of the massive amounts of corruption I've read about involving the Oil-For-Food scandal and kickbacks involving the French, the Russians, and various UN diplomats and hangers-on including the UN chairman's own family, I think the UN could rightly be defined as "trasnational organized crime" itself, couldn' it?

Are they trying to debunk Simon's claim, or are they piling-on themselves?

Shipping supplies to millions of Iraqi schoolchildren

This was instead of shipping freedom to Iraq, which the United States eventually did (against UN wishes). Unfortunately, the delay left more than a few Iraqi schoolchildren in mass graves still being discovered.

Controlling the Marburg virus

If UN peacekeeping was worth a damn, perhaps Angola wouldn't have been at war for decades and their hospitals might have been better prepared to handle a disease easily contained by basic protective measures. Through apathy, the UN helped create conditions that made the outbreak so severe.

Again fanboys, you aren't helping your cause too much...

Building thousands of homes for tsunami victims

The UN contributed $36 million to build (they haven't actually built them mind you, but they will) 9,000 homes. That is nice, but the victims are still homeless five months later while UN officials live in air-conditioned hotels and drink imported wine with local teen hookers. Doubt that? Read The Diplomad, blogged by men who we actually there to see the UN's ineffectiveness and corruption among the deaths of hundreds of thousands.

BTW, how much do you want to bet that the bulk of that $36 million was part of the more than $500 billion contributed by the people of the United States?

Partnering with the private sector to meet humanitarian needs

I didn't actually read this link, but it sounds like it could be describing more UN sexual abuse of children. I can see Pierre crying out, "Hey Lay-deez... I'll give you twenty francs and a food voucher if you'll let me borrow your daughter to satisfy the "humanitarian needs" of my "private sector."

Reducing child mortality rates

Again, didn't read the link, but the answer is simple.

Keep children away from AIDS-infested UN pedophiles.

Of course, it might also have been nice if the UN stepped in in Rwanda, or Darfur, or Bosnia, or... well you get the picture. Stopping genocide (which involves children) is a pretty effective way to combat child mortality rates. Perhaps they should try it sometime.

Rehabilitating Iraq's marshlands

Yep, just as soon as they dig up all those Kurds that Saddam gassed, shot, and bombed while the UN turned a blind eye, the marshes can return to its pristine natural state.

There are more examples provided by the fanboys, but you get the picture. You can splash all the perfume you want on a turd, but it doesn't change it's basic composition.

U.N.-Loved Update: The UN stooges actually decided to spoonfeed this gem of a story to more established bloggers via email. Can you believe their stupidity? I had to find out about it on my own. I guess I need to get more famouser.

And yes I was an English major... why do you ask?

Update: They just keep coming back for more.

This is an archive post. Please visit the main page for more.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:05 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 693 words, total size 6 kb.

Bush Attacked By Complaints Dept

A grenade found near where President Bush gave his speech in Tblisi,Georgia was found to be a non-active training grenade with neither explosives nor a detonator. CNN reports that the device was merely placed in the crowd, and not thrown, and that it was most likely placed in the crowd to scare people and attract media attention.

A suspect was quickly apprehended based upon videotaped footage of the crowd.

The would-be assassin was asked for a statement as he was whisked away by Georgian Security forces, but could only be heard mumbling something about "my stapler."

*****

When asked for comments about the apparent assassination attempt, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Lusional) simply muttered, "The loser."*

It was unclear who he was referring to.

Some liberals were quick to place the blame on--you guessed it--Karl Rove. Yet other Democrats were outraged that someone might have threatened the President's life overseas, when they'd prefer to have him assassinated at home.

* Accurate, but not necessarily true.

This is an archive post. Please visit the main page for more.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 187 words, total size 2 kb.

IMAO: Cat Blog?

There is something to be said for great parody blogs.

Though this isn't half-bad, either. Besides, it's about as close as I've gotten to be on Frank J.'s blogroll so far...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:51 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 37 words, total size 1 kb.

Moveon.org Starts New Voter Registration Drive

They're recruiting the same voter population as always, it appears (h/t: Drudge).

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:43 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.

Sooner Than Expected

I knew it was only a matter of time before the moveon.org wing of the Democratic party would start to show their socialist roots, but I must admit that I didn't think that they would start openly supporting socialists so quickly after running moderate Democrats out of the party (h/t: Drudge).

After making the endorsement of Bernie Sanders, Howard Dean pointed out that that "We've got a few things to work out with Bernie", but Sander's radical socialist politics were apparently enough for a Dean endorsement.

I wonder which part of Sander's platform Howard Dean liked best:

• National socialized healthcare
• Military disarmament (ours)
  
• Higher taxes on the wealthy and businesses
• Pro-abortion
• Against death penalty
• More social program spending

You can almost hear the economy crashing with those ideas, can't you?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:17 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 136 words, total size 1 kb.

Lies by Omission

In a syndicated article aptly titled "Final Insult," liberal NY Times columnist Paul Krugman proves once again why he is a columnist, and not a reporter or an economist. Reporters are supposed to present facts, and economists are supposed to be good with numbers. In this column Krugman proves he is good with neither facts nor figures.

Krugman writes:

Before I take on this final insult to our intelligence, let me deal with a fundamental misconception: the idea that President Bush's plan would somehow protect future Social Security benefits.

If the plan really would do that, it would be worth discussing. It's possible - not certain, but possible - that 40 or 50 years from now Social Security won't have enough money coming in to pay full benefits. (If the economy grows as fast over the next 50 years as it did over the past half-century, Social Security will do just fine.) So there's a case for making small sacrifices now to avoid bigger sacrifices later.

It is certain that Social Security will not have enough money to pay full benefits to retirees. For Krugman to deny this is either transparently dishonest, or it displays a pathetic ability to do basic math. There is no "protection" under the current system.

When Social Security was set up, more than a dozen people were paying into FDR's Social Security Ponzi Scheme for every person that drew benefits. As the Baby Boomer Generation retires, and lives far longer after retirement than previous generations, as few as two people will be paying into the system for each person drawing out, and each person drawing out will be pulling out far more money than the two working people put in. The system is unsustainable, based purely upon the hard numbers of those working versus those drawing on the system.

Krugman's not-so-artful dodge using the red herring of historical economic growth does not support his position. Economic growth is irrelevant to the hard numbers of people paying into the Social Security system versus people drawing for the Social Security system. Good economy or bad economy, people are going to grow old and retire. His argument is completely irrelevant to his position...

...But it provides excellent support for Bush's plan to allow people to privitize part of their savings and invest it into the economy through conservative investments. The economy has not only grown over the past fifty years, but over the past 100, including the Great Depression. Long term investments in government bonds, index funds, and other diversified investments will yield a much higher rate of return that pouring money into the hole of Social Security. How much would it mean to you? Figure it for yourself.

The difference for my decidedly-middle class family is a net gain of $1,570/month more under the Bush Plan, which throughly trumps my projected benefits under Social Security's current guise. Of course, the current Social Security program will be out of money by the time I retire, so actual returns under Bush's plan look far better than the calculator would indicate.

Krugman then goes on a disingenuous attack, claiming that Bush's plan would cut taxes, but cut benefits far more. But Krugman only provides part of the story, and lies by omission; he doesn't apparently include in his calculations the private accounts that are a key component of the Bush plan. In short, he presents all the negatives of the plan, without any of the positive.

When all you tell someone is that you are going to cut out their diseased heart, you are telling them they are going to die. By leaving out the key fact that you are going to put back in a stronger, more vibrant heart, you give them a prognosis 180 degrees away from the truth. Yet this is exactly what Krugman does, while have the gall to say, "I'm not being unfair."

You're not only unfair Mr. Krugman, you're blatantly dishonest.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:46 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 663 words, total size 4 kb.